Search

Background: Informed consent for clinical research includes 2 components: informed consent documents (ICDs) and informed consent conversations (ICCs). Readability software has been used to help simplify the language of the ICD, but to the authors' knowledge is rarely used to assess the language used during the ICC, which may influence the quality of informed consent. The current analysis was performed to determine whether length and reading levels of transcribed ICCs are lower than their corresponding ICDs for selected clinical trials, and to assess whether investigator experience affected the use of simpler language and comprehensiveness.Methods: The current study was a prospective study in which ICCs were audiorecorded at 6 institutions when families were offered participation in pediatric phase I oncology trials. Word count, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Flesch Reading Ease score (FRES) of the ICCs were compared with corresponding ICDs, including the frequency with which investigators addressed 8 prespecified critical consent elements during the ICC.Results: Sixty-nine unique physician/protocol pairs were identified. Overall, ICCs contained fewer words (4677 vs 6364 words; P = .0016) and had a lower FKGL (6 vs 9.7; P ≤ .0001) and a higher FRES (77.8 vs 56.7; P<.0001) compared with their respective ICDs, but were more likely to omit critical consent elements, such as voluntariness (55%) and dose-limiting toxicities (26%). Years of investigator experience was not correlated with reliably covering critical elements or decreased linguistic complexity.Conclusions: Clinicians use more understandable language during ICCs than the corresponding ICD, but appear to less reliably cover elements critical to fully informed consent. Efforts focused at providing communication training for clinician-investigators should be made to optimize the synergy between the ICD and the ICC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to explain pediatric phase 1 oncology trials to families of children with refractory cancer. Parents may misunderstand the information presented to them, and physicians may assume that certain topics are covered in the informed consent document and need not be discussed. Communication models can help to ensure effective discussions. METHODS: Suggestions for improving the informed consent process were first solicited from phase 1 study clinicians via questionnaire. Eight parents who had enrolled their child on a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial were recruited for an advisory group designed to assess the clinicians' suggestions and make additional recommendations for improving informed consent for pediatric phase 1 trials. RESULTS: A phase 1 communication model was designed to incorporate the suggestions of clinicians and families. It focused on educating parents/families about phase 1 trials at specific time points during a child's illness, but specifically at the point of disease recurrence. An informative phase 1 fact sheet that can be distributed to families was also presented. CONCLUSIONS: Families who will be offered information regarding phase 1 clinical trials can first receive a standardized fact sheet explaining the general purpose of these earlyphase clinical trials. Parental understanding may be enhanced further when oncologists address key themes, beginning at the time of diagnosis and continuing through important decision points during the child's illness. This model should be prospectively evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that deals with research on communication that evolves during informed consent conferences (ICC). The study used a stratified random sample from six pediatric cancer centers to examine communication during ICCs for pediatric Phase I cancer trials. It identified key communication steps and factors influencing the negotiation of decisions for trial participation.