Background Informed consent is a requirement for all research. It is not, however, clear how much information is sufficient to make an informed decision about participation in research. Information on an online questionnaire about childhood development was provided through an unfolding electronic participant sheet in three levels of information.
Methods 552 participants, who completed the web-based survey, accessed and spent time reading the participant information sheet (PIS) between July 2008 and November 2009. The information behaviour of the participants was investigated. The first level contained less information than might be found on a standard PIS, the second level corresponded to a standard PIS, and the third contained more information than on a standard PIS. The actual time spent on reading the information provided in three incremental levels and the participants' evaluation of the information were calculated.
Results 77% of the participants chose to access the first level of information, whereas 12% accessed the first two levels, 6% accessed all three levels of information and 23% participated without accessing information. The most accessed levels of information were those that corresponded to the average reading times.
Conclusion The brief information provided in the first level was sufficient for participants to make informed decisions, while a sizeable minority of the participants chose not to access any information at all. This study adds to the debate about how much information is required to make a decision about participation in research and the results may help inform the future development of information sheets by providing data on participants' actual needs when deciding about questionnaire surveys.
- Electronic participant information sheets
- ethics committees
- ethics committees/consultation
- informed consent
- research ethics
- web-based clinical research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Ethical Review Committee of the University of Birmingham.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review
- Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study
- Relative importance of informational items in participant information leaflets for trials: a Q-methodology approach
- How are adults with capacity-affecting conditions and associated communication difficulties included in ethically sound research? A documentary-based survey of ethical review and recruitment processes under the research provisions of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) for England and Wales
- Decision aids for randomised controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of stakeholders’ views
- Performance-based readability testing of participant materials for a phase I trial: TGN1412
- Quantitative aspects of informed consent: considering the dose response curve when estimating quantity of information
- A hands-on guide on obtaining research ethics approval
- Developing a new model for patient recruitment in mental health services: a cohort study using Electronic Health Records
- Applying for ethical approval for research in the United Kingdom