An evaluation of informed consent comprehension by adult trial participants in South Africa at the time of providing consent for clinical trial participation and a review of the literature

References

• Beauchamp JL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Lidz CW. The therapeutic misconception and our models of competency and informed consent. Behav Sci Law. 2006;24:535–546. doi:10.1002/bsl.700
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz J. The nuremberg code and the nuremburg trial; a reappraisal. J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276(20):1662–1666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. The belmont report [Online]. Available from: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed February 21, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional review board written procedures: guidance for institutions and IRBs (2018) [Online]. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/institutional-issues/institutional-review-board-written-procedures/index.html. Accessed February 06, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• CIOMS. CIOMS international ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects [Online] Available from: http://www.recerca.uab.es/ceeah/docs/CIOMS.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki [Online]. Available from: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf. Accessed February 21, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Yuval R, Halon DA, Merdler A, et al. Patient comprehension and reaction to participating in a double-blind randomized clinical trial (ISIS04) in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(8):1142–1146.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stead M, Eadie D, Gordon D, Angus K. “Hello, hello.it’s English I speak!”: a qualitative exploration of patients’ understanding of the science of clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:664–669. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.011064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buccini LD Developing an instrument to measure informed consent comprehension in non-cognitively impaired adults [Doctor of Public Health Thesis], School of Health sciences, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Woolongong
   Google Scholar
• Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198:420–435. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denny CC, Grady C. Clinical research with economically disadvantaged populations. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(7):382–385. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.017681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yusuf S. Clinical research and trials in developing countries. Stat Med. 2002;21:2859–2867. doi:10.1002/sim.1290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emanuel E, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:930–937. doi:10.1086/381709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindegger G, Richter L. HIV vaccine trials: critical issues in informed consent. S Afr J Sci. 2000;96:313–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess LJ, Sulzer NU, Emanuel SC. Clinical trial remuneration: the patient’s perspective. S Afr Med J. 2008;98(2):95–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess LJ, Sulzer NU, Hoosain F, et al. Patient’s motivations for participating in cardiovascular clinical trials: a local perspective. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2009;2094:220–223.
   Google Scholar
• Moodley K, Pather M, Myer L. Informed consent and participant perceptions of influenza vaccine trials in South Africa. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:727–732. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.009910
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn LB, Nowrangi MA, Palmer BW, et al. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment. A review of instruments. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(8):1323–1334. doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosin MT, Klitzman R, Levin B, et al. Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):306–313. doi:10.1191/1740774506cn150oa
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manafa O, Lindegger G, Ijsselmuiden C. Informed consent in an antiretroviral trial in Nigeria. Indian J Med Ethics. 2007;IV(1):26–30.
   Google Scholar
• Chaisson LH, Kass NE, Chengata B, et al. Repeated assessments of informed consent comprehension among HIV-infected participants of a three-year clinical trial in Botswana. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e22696. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022696
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Coovadia HM, et al. Informed consent for HIV testing in a South African hospital: how informed and voluntary? Am J Public Health. 1998;93:582–584.
   Google Scholar
• Joubert G, Steinberg H, van der Ryst E, et al. Consent for participation in the Bloemfontein Vitamin A trial: how informed and voluntary? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):582–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindegger G, Milford C, Slack C, et al. Beyond the checklist. Assessing understanding for HIV vaccine trial participation in South Africa. J Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 2006;43:560–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minnies D, Hawkridge T, Hanekom W, et al. Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;9:15. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-9-15
   Google Scholar
• Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Jacobsson L, et al. Informed consent in China: quality of information provided to participants in a research project. Scand J Public Health. 2004;32:472–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Erickson JD, Li Z, Berry RJ. Evaluation of the informed consent process in a randomized controlled trial in China: the sino-US NTD project. J Clin Trials. 2004;15:61–75.
   Google Scholar
• Pace C, Emanuel EJ, Chuenyam T, et al. The quality of informed consent in a clinical research study in Thailand. IRB. 2005;27:9–17.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joseph P, Schackman BR, Horwitz R, et al. The use of an educational video during informed consent in an HIV clinical trial in Haiti. J Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. 2006;42:588–591. doi:10.1097/01.qai.0000229998.59869.05
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guarino P, Lamping DL, Elbourne D, Carpenter J, Peduzzi P. A brief measure of perceived understanding of informed consent in a clinical trial was validated. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:608–614. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmand B, Gouwenberg B, Smit JH, Jonker C. Assessment of mental competency in community-dwelling elderly. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1999;13:80–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckels VD, Powlishta KK, Palmer JL, et al. Understanding of informed consent by demented individuals. Neurology. 2003;61:1662–1666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meulenbrock O, Vernooij-Dassen M, Kessels RPC, et al. Informed consent in dementia research. Legislation, theoretical concepts and how to assess capacity to consent. Eur Geriatr Med. 2010;1(1):58–63. doi:10.1016/j.eurger.2010.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller CK, O’Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The deaconness informed consent comprehension test: as assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16(5):872–878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358:1772–1777. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochhauser M. Consent comprehension in the 21st century: what is missing? Drug Inf J. 2008;42:375. doi:10.1177/009286150804200410
   Google Scholar
• Sugarmann J, Lavori PW, Boeger M, et al. Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clin Trials. 2005;2:34–41. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn066oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terblanche M, Burgess LJ. Examining the readability of patient informed consent forms. Open Access J Clin Trials. 2010;2:157–162. doi:10.2147/OAJCT.S13608
   Google Scholar
• Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? J Clin Oncol. 2004;27:570–575. doi:10.1097/01.coc.0000135925.83221.b3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Bruncati FL. Readability standards for informed consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:721–726. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa021212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Development and Support. Clinical trial checklist for the health rsearch ethics committee at the faculty of medicine and health sciences, Stellenbosch University [Online]; n.d. Available from: http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Health_Sciences/English/Centres%20and%20Institutions/Research_Development_Support/Ethics/new_application. Accessed February 20, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Wittenberg KM, Dickler HB. Universal use of short and readable informed consent documents: how do we get there? Creating informed consent documents that inform: a literature review. Association of American Medical Colleges Appendix C, Feb 2007. Available at: http://www.aamc.org/research/clinicalresearch/hdickler-mtgsumrpt53007.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• LoVerde ME, Prochazka AV, Byyny RL. Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:410–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• South African Department of Health. Guidelines for Good Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials with Human Participants in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printer; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Redish J. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM J Comput Doc. 2000;24(3):132–137. doi:10.1145/344599
   Google Scholar
• Coyne CA, XU R, R, Raich P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern cooperative oncology group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:836–842. doi:10.1200/JCO.2003.07.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anonymous. The languages of South Africa. SouthAfrica.info [Online]; 2013. Available from: http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/language.htm. Accessed February 20, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Schenker Y, Wang F, Selig SJ, et al. The impact of language barriers on documentation of informed consent at a hospital on-site interpreter services. J Gen Med. 2007;22(supplement2):295–299.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson (2012). Wanted: readers, writers and publishers. The Economist [Online]. 29 June 2012. Available from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/06/language-south-africa. Accessed February 20, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Pandiya A. Readability and comprehensibility of informed consent forms for clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2010;1(3):98–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BBC News (2000). Controversy dogs AIDS forum. BBC News [Online]. 10 Jul 2000. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/826742.stm. Accessed February 21, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Andresen EL, Wilson KA, Castillo A, Koopman C. Patient motivation for participating in clinical trials for depression: validity of the motivation for clinical trials inventory-depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2010;25(1):7–16. doi:10.1097/YIC.0b013e328332055c
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stunkel L, Grady C. More than the money: a review of the literature examining healthy volunteer motivations. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(3):342–352. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2010.12.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udrea G, Dumitrescu B, Purcarea M, et al. Patients’ perspectives and motivators to participate in clinical trials with novel therapies for rheumatoid arthritis. J Med Life. 2009;15(2):227–231.
   Google Scholar
• Wang LH, Tsai YF, Chen JS, Tsay PK. Intention, needs, and expectations of cancer patients participating in clinical trials. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(2):117–123. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181efe1c0
   Google Scholar
• Nappo SA, Iafrate GB, Sanchez ZM. Motives for participating in a clinical research trial: a pilot study in Brazil. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:19. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients’ understanding of the risk of treatments. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(SupplI):i14–i18. [Online].
   Google Scholar
• Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Jacobsson L, et al. Informed consent in two Swedish prisons: a study of quality of information and reasons for participating in a clinical trial. Med Law. 2001;20(4):519–523.
   Google Scholar
• Gattelari M, Butow PN, Tattersall MH. What did the doctor say? Lancet. 1999;353:1713. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09449-5
   Google Scholar
• Cheng JD, Hitt J, Koczwara B, et al. Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding Phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:421–428. doi:10.1200/JCO.2000.18.2.421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody BA, McCullough LB, Sharp RR. Consensus and controversy in clinical research ethics. J Am Med Assoc. 2005;294:1411–1444. doi:10.1001/jama.294.11.1411
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kardinal CA, Sanders JB. Altruism: a form of hope for patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(15 Supplement):e19559.
   Google Scholar
• International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH), ICH Guideline E6(R2). Guideline for good clinical practice [Online]; 2016. Available from: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA481.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Turney J. Public understanding of science. Lancet. 1996;347:1087–1090.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation of allocation at random? Patient’s perspectives of participation in a randomized controlled trial. Br Med J. 1998;317(7167):1177–1180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis PM, Dowsett SM, Butow PN, et al. Attitudes to randomized clinical trial amongst out-patients attending a medical oncology clinical. Health Expectations. 1999;2:33–43.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(9):1337–1355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Lavallo D. Overconfidence and excess entry: an experimental approach. Am Econ Rev. 1999;89(1):306–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschhorn W, Ghannam F. Informed consent: an important obligation involving hidden issues. SoCRA Source. 2004;17–20. [Online]. Available from: http://www.socra.org/pdf/200405_Informed_Consent_Obligation.pdf. Accessed April 02, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• New York State Council of Health System Pharmacists. Three characteristics to success. J Pharm Pract. 2012;25:622–623. [Online]. Available from: http://jpp.sagepub.com/content/25/6/622.extract. Accessed April 02, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participating comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(3):273–280. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00180.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kripilani S, Bengtzen R, Henderson LE, Jacobson TA. Clinical research in low-literacy populations: using teach-back to assess comprehension of informed consent and privacy information. IRB Ethics Hum Res. 2008;30(2):13–19.
   Google Scholar
• Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(5):485–493. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70128-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rousanville DB, Hunkele K, Eaton CJ, et al. Making consent more informed: preliminary results from a multiple-choice tests among probation-referred marijuana users entering a rando-mized clinical trial. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2008;36(3):354–359.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridpath JR, Wiese CJ, Greene SM. Looking at research consent forms through a participant-centred lens: the PRISMS readability toolkit. Am J Health Promotion. 2009;23(6):371–373. doi:10.4278/ajhp.080613-CIT-94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer AR, Good M, Shapiro L. A new look at informed consent for cancer clinical trials. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7(4):267–270. doi:10.1200/JOP.2011.000347
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Understanding clinical trials with a “Speaking Book” [Online]; 2009. Available from: http://www.pfizer.com/files/research/research_clinical_trials/ClinicalTrials_SpeakingBook_030209.pdf. Accessed February 18, 2013
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. “Clinical |research studies and you” [Online]; n. d. Available from: http://www.ncats.nih.gov/research/cts/clinical-trials/research-and-you/studies-and-you.html. Accessed February 18, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Mansell P (2012). Mytrus launches iPad informed consent application. Online PharmaTimes. 10 Apr 2012 [Online]. Available from: http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/12-04-10/Mytrus_launches_iPad_informed-consent_application.aspx Accessed February20, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Gossen R. Electronic informed consent: possibilities, benefits, and challenges [Online]; 2012. Available from: http://rebarinteractive.com/electronic-informed-consent-introduction/. Accessed April 02, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Butcher L. Health care IT for oncology: informed-consent app. Oncol Time. 2012;34(21):27. doi:10.1097/01.COT.0000422993.49579.25
   Google Scholar
• Brown RF, Shuk E, Butow P, Edgerson S, Tattersall MHN, Ostroff JS. Identifying patient information needs about cancer clinical trials using a question prompt list. Patient Edu Couns. 2011;84(1):69–77. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RF, Bylund CL, Li Y, Edgerson S, Butow P. Testing the utility of a cancer clinical trial specific Question Prompt List (QPL-CT) during oncology consultations. Patient Edu Couns. 2012;88(2):311–317. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for information and study on clinical research participation; [webpage on the Internet]. d. Available from: http://www.ciscrp.org. Accessed March 22, 2013
   Google Scholar
• Thiers FA, Sinskey AJ, Berndt ER. Trends in the globalization of clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7(1):13–14. doi:10.1038/nrd2441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petryna A. When Experiments Travel; Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects. USA: Princeton University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration. Participation of certain population subsets in clinical drug trials: request for comment. Fed Regist. 2009;74(8). [Online]. Available from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2009_register&docid=fr13ja09-60. Accessed September 29, 2010.
   Google Scholar