Journal of Korean Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (임상약리학회지)

Korean Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (대한임상약리학회)
권호 표지

Comparative Evaluation of Comprehension and Preference between a Conventional Versus a Modified Form of Information Sheets for the Subjects

흔히 사용하는 양식과 새로 변경한 양식의 피험자 설명서에 대한 이해도와 선호도의 비교 평가 연구

  • Shim, Myung-Jin (Clinical Trial Center, Chonnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Lim, Young-Chai (Department of Pharmacology, Chonnam National University Medical School)
  • 심명진 (전남대학교 병원 임상시험센터) ;
  • 임영채 (전남대학교 의과대학 약리학교실)
  • Received : 2010.06.14
  • Accepted : 2010.06.21
  • Published : 2010.06.30
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Backgrounds: The style and contents of information sheet is very important to make the subjects understand appropriately the information provided in the information sheet. However, the conventional forms of information sheets are still mostly difficult to read and understand for the subjects who are mostly unfamiliar to the complex clinical research process. We performed a prospective comparative evaluation of comprehension and preference between a conventional versus a new modified information sheets, in which both styles are different but the contents are same each other. Methods: The 66 participants were divided into two groups. The control group read the conventional information sheet (CIS) and the other test group read the modified information sheet (MIS). After reading the information sheet, both groups answered the questionnaire to evaluate their comprehension on the clinical research presented in the information sheet. By having the control group read MIS and the test group CIS resp., both groups could compare MIS with CIS and expressed their preference one over the other. Results: The population had a mean age of 21.5 years. The average speed of reading MIS (4.13 words/sec) was faster than that of CIS (3.48 words/sec). The score of comprehension on MIS (the percentage of correct answers: 71.4%) was significantly greater than that on CIS (correct answers: 64.3%). The 8 items newly adopted in MIS modified from CIS in this study were 1) bold style and underlining of characters, 2) increasing font size of characters, 3) using diagrams, 4) widening the interval between lines, 5) using colors, 6) inserting a table of contents, 7) using the cover page, and 8) using header symbols. In a preference study, 87.9% of participants preferred MIS to CIS. Conclusions: Improvement of participants' comprehension was observed through using a new modified information sheet over the conventional information sheet, suggesting a new efficient information sheet.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 한국과학재단

References

  1. Shim MJ, Lim YC. Novel classification of the informed consent process in clinical research and the ways to improve each detailed stage. Kor J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2009;17(1):5-26. (Korean) https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2008.278
  2. 이형기. 의료, 제약업계 잘 나갈 때 챙길 전 챙겨라. 학이사 의과학 <6> 피험자 보호, 프레시안 신문, 2007년 8월.
  3. 구영모. 임상연구의 윤리. 개정증보판 생명의료 윤리. 동녘출판사, 2004.
  4. 김철준, 신상구. 신약개발과 임상시험. In 전정판 임상약리학. 제3판, 서울대학교출판부, 327-344, 2006.
  5. 식품의약품안전청. 의약품 임상시험 관리기준. 식품의약품안전청 고시 제2009-211호, 2009년 12월 22일.
  6. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Belmont Report on Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, 1979.
  7. Moon HL. Informed Consent: Ethical Considerations. Kor J Clin Pharmacolo Ther, 1996;4(1):111-114. (Korean)
  8. Declaration of Helsinki. 59th World Medical Association Meeting, 6th revision, Oct 2008.
  9. 국립독성연구원. 임상시험 관련자를 위한 기본 교재. 국립독성연구원, 27-36, 2006.
  10. Sharp SM. Improving the process of obtaining informed consent. Applied Clinical Trials, 2001;10(1):1-5.
  11. Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarship, 2007;39(3):273-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00180.x
  12. Meade CD, Howser DM. Consent forms: How to determine and improve their readability. Oncol Nursing Forum, 1992;19(10):1523-1528.
  13. White LJ, Jones S, Felton CW, Pool LC. Informed consent for medical research: common discrepancies and readability. Acad Emer Med, 1996;3(8):475-50.
  14. Paasche-Orlow, Michael K, Taylor, Holly A, Brancati, Frederick L. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New Engl J Med, 2003;348(8):721-726. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa021212
  15. Stiffler HL. Guidelines for obtaining informed consent for clinical research. Applied Clinical Trials, 2003;12:6-13.
  16. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: So why are they Lengthening?. J Clin Oncol, 2007;25(9):13-14. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3341
  17. Moon HL, Kim HK. A survey on the cognition on informed consent for clinical trials of cancer treating personnel. Kor J Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2002;8(2):202-212. (Korean)
  18. 문한림, 한지연, 김훈교. 임상시험에 사용된 동의서의 분석. 제7차 대한임상약리학회 추계학술대회 초록집, 58p, 1998.
  19. Moseley TH, Wiggins MN, O'Sullivan P. Effects of presentation method on the understanding of informed consent. Br J Ophthalmol, 2006;90(8):990-993. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2006.092650