The effects of presenting oncologic information in terms of opposites in a medical context

References

• European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate-GeneralRevision of the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. Brussels, 09/02/2011. SANCO/C/8/PB/SF D(2011) 143488 Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/clinicaltrials/ctresp_2011-06/leti_pharma.pdfAccessed March 16, 2018
   Google Scholar
• AaronsonNKVisser-PolELeenhoutsGHTelephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trialsJ Clin Oncol19961439849968622050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrownRFButowPNEllisPBoyleFTattersallMHSeeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials: describing current practiceSoc Sci Med200458122445245715081196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JenkinsVFallowfieldLSouhamiASatwellMHow do doctors explain randomised clinical trials to their patients?Eur J Cancer19993581187119310615228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HietanenPAroARHolliKAbsetzPInformation and communication in the context of a clinical trialEur J Cancer200036162096210411044647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HollandJBrowmanGMcDonaldMSaginurRProtecting human research participants: reading vs understanding the consent formJ Natl Cancer Inst20131051392792823821756
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paasche-OrlowMKTaylorHABrancatiFLReadability standards for informed consent forms as compared with actual readabilityN Engl J Med2003348872172612594317
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchumacherASikovWMQuesenberryMIInformed consent in oncology clinical trials: a Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot studyPLoS One2017122e017295728235011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BreesePBurmanWGoldbergSWeisSEducation level, primary language, and comprehension of the informed consent processJ Empir Res Hum Res Ethics2007246979
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DresdenGMLevittMAModifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent processAcad Emerg Med20018324625211229946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JoffeSCookEFClearlyPDClarkJWWeeksJCQuality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjectsJ Natl Cancer Inst200193213914711208884
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BrandbergYJohanssonHBergenmarMPatients’ knowledge and perceived understanding – associations with consenting to participate in cancer clinical trialsContemp Clin Trials Commun2016215611
   Google Scholar
• MillerSMHudsonSVEglestonBLThe relationships among knowledge, self-efficacy, preparedness, decisional conflict, and decisions to participate in a cancer clinical trialPsychooncology201322348148922331643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PravettoniGCuticaIRighettiSMazzoccoKDecisions and the involvement of cancer patient survivors: a moral imperativeJ Healthc Leadersh2016812112529355188
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ByrneMMKornfeldJVanderpoolRBelangerMDiscussions of cancer clinical trials with NCI’s Cancer Information ServiceJ Health Commun201217331933722150169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ByrneMMTannenbaumSLGluckSHurleyJAntoniMParticipation in cancer clinical trials: why are patients not participating?Med Decis Making201334111612623897588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Des JarlaisDCPaoneDMillikenJAudio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: a quasi-randomised trialLancet199935391651657166110335785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FloryJEmanuelEInterventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic reviewJAMA200429213593601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• JacobsenPBWellsKJMeadeCDEffects of a brief multimedia psychoeducational intervention on the attitudes and interest of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial participation: a multicenter randomized controlled trialJ Clin Oncol201230202516252122614993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KassNETaylorHAAliJHallezKChaissonLA pilot study of simple interventions to improve informed consent in clinical research: feasibility, approach, and resultsClin Trials2015121546625475879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KrishnamurtiTArgoNA patient-centered approach to informed consent: results from a survey and randomized trialMed Decis Making201636672674026964877
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NishimuraACareyJErwinPJTilburtJCMuradMHMcCormickJBImproving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trialsBMC Med Ethics201314281428
   Google Scholar
• PerlisTEDes JarlaisDCFriedmanSRArastehKTurnerCFAudio-computerized self-interviewing versus face-to-face interviewing for research data collection at drug abuse treatment programsAddiction200499788589615200584
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SynnotARyanRPrictorMFetherstonhaughDParkerBAudiovisual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trialsCochrane Database Syst Rev201495CD003717
   Google Scholar
• StunkelLBensonMMcLellanLComprehension and informed consent: assessing the effectiveness of a short consent formIRB201032419
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BergenmarMJohanssonHWilkingNLevels of knowledge and perceived understanding among participants in cancer clinical trials – factors related to the informed consent procedureClin Trials201181778421109583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BianchiIBurroRTorquatiSSavardiUThe middle of the road: perceiving intermediatesActa Psychol20131441121135
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BianchiISavardiUThe Perception of ContrariesRomaAracne2008
   Google Scholar
• BianchiISavardiUBurroRPerceptual ratings of opposite spatial properties: do they lie on the same dimension?Acta Psychol20111383405418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BurroRTo be objective in experimental phenomenology: a psychophysics applicationSpringerPlus201651172027777856
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BianchiIParadisCBurroRvan de WeijerJNyströmMSavardiUIdentification of poles and intermediates by eye and by handActa Psychol2017180175189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BianchiISavardiUKubovyMDimensions and their poles: a metric and topological theory of oppositesLang Cogn Process201126812321265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GärdenforsPConceptual Spaces: The Geometry of ThoughtCambridgeThe MIT Press2000
   Google Scholar
• GärdenforsPThe Geometry of MeaningSemantics Based on Conceptual SpacesCambridgeThe MIT Press2014
   Google Scholar
• MillerGAThe Science of WordsNew YorkScientific American Library1996
   Google Scholar
• JonesSMurphyMLParadisCWillnersCAntonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and CanonicityCambridgeCambridge University Press2012
   Google Scholar
• ParadisCHudsonJMagnussonUThe Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual SpaceOxfordOxford University Press2013
   Google Scholar
• ParadisCWillnersCJonesSGood and bad opposites: using textual and psycholinguistic techniques to measure antonym canonicityMent Lex200943380429
   Google Scholar
• CroftWCruseDACognitive LinguisticsCambridgeCambridge University Press2004
   Google Scholar
• CruseDAPagonaTTowards a cognitive model of antonymyLexicology19951113141
   Google Scholar
• FellbaumCCo-occurrence and antonymyInt J Lex199584281303
   Google Scholar
• JonesSAntonymy: A Corpus-Based PerspectiveLondonRoutledge2002
   Google Scholar
• MurphyLSemantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonyms, Synonyms and Other Semantic ParadigmsCambridgeCambridge University Press2003
   Google Scholar
• CasasolaMThe development of infants’ spatial categoriesCurr Dir Psychol Sci2008172125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CasasolaMCohenLBChiarelloESix-month-old infants’ categorization of containment spatial relationsChild Dev20037467969312795384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HesposSJSpelkeESConceptual precursors to languageNature20144306998453456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonoughLChoiSMandlerJMUnderstanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adultsCog Psychol2003463229259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QuinnPCCumminsMKaseJMartinEWeismanSDevelopment of categorical representations for above and below spatial relations in 3- to 7-month-old infantsDev Psychol1996325942950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BianchiISavardiUBurroRMartelliMFDoing the opposite to what another person is doingActa Psychol2014151117133
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KelsoJASEngstrømDThe Complementary NatureCambridgeThe MIT Press2006
   Google Scholar
• SavardiUThe Perception and Cognition of ContrariesMilanoMc-Graw Hill2009
   Google Scholar
• BatesDMachlerMBolkerBMWalkerSCFitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4J Stat Softw201567148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LenthRVLeast-squares means: the R package lsmeansJ Stat Softw2016691133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BurroRRaccanelloDPasiniMBrondinoMAn estimation of a nonlinear dynamic process using latent class extended mixed models: affect profiles after terrorist attacksNonlinear Dynamics Psychol Life Sci2018221355229223197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KuznetsovaABruunBPHauboBCRlmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects modelsR package version 2.0-32 [serial on the Internet]2016 Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTestAccessed November 2, 2017
   Google Scholar
• CohenJStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences2nd edNew YorkAcademic Press1988
   Google Scholar
• NakagawaSSchielzethHA general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects modelsMethods Ecol Evol201342133142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FriendlyMMosaic displays for multi-way contingency tablesJ Am Stat Ass199489190200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FriendlyMVisualizing Categorical DataCareySAS Institute2000
   Google Scholar
• AlstonCPagetLHalvorsonGCommunicating with Patients on Health Care EvidenceDiscussion PaperInstitute of MedicineWashington, DC2012 Available from: https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/VSRT-Evidence.pdf
   Google Scholar
• RaoKHSInformed consent: an ethical obligation or legal compulsion?J Cutan Aesthet Surg200811333520300341
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• CheungWYPondGRHeslegraveRJEnrightKPotaninaLSiuLLThe contents and readability of informed consent forms for oncology clinical trialsAm J Clin Oncol201033438739219884804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SudoreRLLandefeldCSWilliamsBABarnesDELindquistKSchillingerDUse of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive studyJ Gen Intern Med200621886787316881949
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DormandyETsuiEYMarteauTMDevelopment of a measure of informed choice suitable for use in low literacy populationsPatient Educ Couns20076627829517300913
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChoiJLiterature review: using pictographs in discharge instructions for older adults with low-literacy skillsJ Clin Nurs2011202984299621851434
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TamarizLPalacioARobertMImproving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic reviewJ Gen Intern Med20132812112622782275
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DavisTCHolcombeRFBerkelHJInformed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified formsJ Natl Cancer Inst1998906686749586663
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KimEJKimSHSimplification of inform consent improves understanding of informed consent information in clinical trials regardless of health literacyClin Trials201512323223625701156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar