An informed consent form is essential in drug development clinical trials. This study aimed to evaluate regulatory compliance and readability of informed consent forms currently being used in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials.
Methods
This descriptive, cross-sectional study evaluated the informed consent forms of industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials conducted at the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, between 2019 and 2020. The informed consent form’s compliance with the three major ethical guidelines and regulations (i.e. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E6(R2) Good Clinical Practice; Declaration of Helsinki; and the revised Common Rule) were analyzed. The document length and the readability scores (using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade) were assessed.
Results
Of 64 reviewed informed consent forms, the average page length was 22.0 ± 7.4 pages. More than half of their length was mainly devoted to three elements: trial procedures (22.9%), risks and discomforts (19.1%), and confidentiality and the limit of confidentiality (10.1%). Although most of the required elements of the informed consent form content were included in most informed consent forms, we identified four elements with often missing information in the form: aspects of research that are experimental (n = 43, 67.2%), involvement of whole-genome sequencing (n = 35, 54.7%), commercial profit sharing (n = 31, 48.4%), and posttrial provisions (n = 28, 43.8%).
Conclusion
The informed consent forms in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials were long but incomplete. Our findings draw attention to ongoing challenges in industry-sponsored drug development clinical trials, where deficient informed consent form quality continues to exist.
GradyCCummingsSRRowbothamMC, et al. Informed consent. N Engl J Med2017; 376(9): 856–867.
2.
FeehanAKGarcia-DiazJ. Investigator responsibilities in clinical research. Ochsner J2020; 20(1): 44–49.
3.
ResnikDB. Do informed consent documents matter?Contemp Clin Trials2009; 30(2): 114–115.
4.
SugarmanJ. Examining Provisions Related to Consent in the Revised Common Rule. Am J Bioeth2017; 17(7): 22–26.
5.
TamNTHuyNTThoa leTB, et al. Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ2015; 93(3): 186–198h.
6.
Alexa-StratulatTNeaguMNeaguAI, et al. Consent for participating in clinical trials—is it really informed?Dev World Bioeth2018; 18(3): 299–306.
7.
WisgallaAHasfordJ. Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research are invalid: a critical analysis of current practices. BMJ Open2022; 12(3): e050543.
8.
SharpSM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things?Am J Clin Oncol2004; 27(6): 570–575.
9.
GuptaUC. Informed consent in clinical research: revisiting few concepts and areas. Perspect Clin Res2013; 4(1): 26–32.
10.
JhanwarVGBishnoiRJ. Comprehensibility of translated informed consent documents used in clinical research in psychiatry. Indian J Psychol Med2010; 32(1): 7–12.
11.
FoeGLarsonEL. Reading level and comprehension of research consent forms: an integrative review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics2016; 11(1): 31–46.
12.
European Medicines Agency. ICH E6(R2): guideline for good clinical practice, 2016. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency, 2016.
13.
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA2013; 310(20): 2191–2194.
14.
Office for Human Research Protections of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2018 Requirements (2018 Common Rule). Rockville, MD: Office for Human Research Protections, 2018.
15.
KoonrungsesomboonNTharavanijTShayakulC. Guidance and template of informed consent form for clinical trials in Thailand. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 2020.
16.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ICD—10—CM official guidelines for coding and reporting FY 2021 (October 1, 2020—September 30, 2021). Hyattsville, MD: NCHS, 2021.
17.
FleschR. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol1948; 32(3): 221–233.
18.
LorellBHMikitaJSAndersonA, et al. Informed consent in clinical research: consensus recommendations for reform identified by an expert interview panel. Clin Trials2015; 12(6): 692–695.
19.
BossertSStrechD. An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving “understanding” in informed consent. Trials2017; 18(1): 482.
20.
KaneEI3rdGalloJJ. Perspectives of IRB chairs on the informed consent process. AJOB Empir Bioeth2017; 8(2): 137–143.
21.
NatheJMKrakowEF. The challenges of informed consent in high-stakes, randomized oncology trials: a systematic review. MDM Policy Pract2019; 4(1): 2381468319840322.
22.
de la Mora-MolinaHBarajas-OchoaASandoval-GarciaL, et al. Trends of Informed Consent forms for industry-sponsored clinical trials in rheumatology over a 17-year period: readability, and assessment of patients’ health literacy and perceptions. Semin Arthritis Rheum2018; 48(3): 547–552.
23.
AshkenaziIOsterNFeinbergP, et al. Evaluation of length and complexity of written consent forms in English and Hebrew for participation in clinical trials authorized in one medical institution in Israel: a descriptive study. Account Res2020; 27(3): 138–145.
24.
DuongQMandrekarSJWinhamSJ, et al. Understanding verbosity: funding source and the length of consent forms for cancer clinical trials. J Cancer Educ2021; 36(6): 1248–1252.
25.
LynöeNHoeyerK. Quantitative aspects of informed consent: considering the dose response curve when estimating quantity of information. J Med Ethics2005; 31(12): 736–738.
26.
ReinertCKremmlerLBurockS, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trials. Eur J Cancer2014; 50(1): 150–158.
27.
O’SullivanLFeeneyLCrowleyRK, et al. An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff. Trials2021; 22(1): 544.
28.
SaylorPJ. Informed consent 2021: the “terms and conditions” of the research world. Oncologist2021; 26(11): 902–903.
29.
MalikLCooperJ. A comparison of the quality of informed consent for phase I oncology trials over a 30-year period. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol2018; 82(5): 907–910.
30.
JenkinsSPCalvertMJDraperH. Potential research participants’ use of information during the consent process: a qualitative pilot study of patients enrolled in a clinical trial. PLoS ONE2020; 15(6): e0234388.
31.
WendlerD. What should be disclosed to research participants?Am J Bioeth2013; 13(12): 3–8.
32.
KarbwangJKoonrungsesomboonNTorresCE, et al. What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey. BMC Med Ethics2018; 19(1): 79.
33.
KoonrungsesomboonNPotikanondSNa TakuathungM, et al. Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol2019; 75(11): 1575–1582.
34.
KirkbyHMCalvertMDraperH, et al. What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review. BMJ Open2012; 2(3): e000509.
35.
KohJGohEYuKS, et al. Discrepancy between participants’ understanding and desire to know in informed consent: are they informed about what they really want to know?J Med Ethics2012; 38(2): 102–106.
36.
DranseikaVPiaseckiJWaligoraM. Relevant information and informed consent in research: in defense of the subjective standard of disclosure. Sci Eng Ethics2017; 23(1): 215–225.
37.
MillumJBromwichD. Informed consent: what must be disclosed and what must be understood?Am J Bioeth2021; 21(5): 46–58.
38.
KoonrungsesomboonNLaothavornJChokevivatV, et al. SIDCER informed consent form: principles and a developmental guideline. Indian J Med Ethics2016; 1(2): 83–86.
39.
BleibergHDecosterGde GramontA, et al. A need to simplify informed consent documents in cancer clinical trials. A position paper of the ARCAD Group. Ann Oncol2017; 28(5): 922–930.
40.
KoonrungsesomboonNTeekachunhateanSHanprasertpongN, et al. Improved participants’ understanding in a healthy volunteer study using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol2016; 72(4): 413–421.
41.
KoonrungsesomboonNTharavanijTPhiphatpatthamaamphanK, et al. Improved participants’ understanding of research information in real settings using the SIDCER informed consent form: a randomized-controlled informed consent study nested with eight clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol2017; 73(2): 141–149.
42.
LentzJKennettMPerlmutterJ, et al. Paving the way to a more effective informed consent process: recommendations from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials2016; 49: 65–69.
43.
PeduzziPGuarinoPDontaST, et al. Research on informed consent: investigator-developed versus focus group-developed consent documents, a VA cooperative study. Control Clin Trials2002; 23(2): 184–197.
44.
SimondsVWBuchwaldD. Too dense and too detailed: evaluation of the health literacy attributes of an informed consent document. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities2020; 7(2): 327–335.
45.
BossertSKahrassHHeinemeyerU, et al. Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research—study results and methodological reflections. BMC Medical Ethics2017; 18(1): 78.
46.
CorneliANameyEMuellerMP, et al. Evidence-based strategies for shortening informed consent forms in clinical research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics2017; 12(1): 14–25.
47.
NishimuraACareyJErwinPJ, et al. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics2013; 14: 28.
48.
RebersSAaronsonNKvan LeeuwenFE, et al. Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention. BMC Med Ethics2016; 17: 9.
49.
VermaS. Exemption from informed consent: when it is possible in investigational product and drug trials?Saudi J Anaesth2021; 15(4): 428–430.
50.
KoonrungsesomboonNLaothavornJKarbwangJ. Understanding of essential elements required in informed consent form among researchers and institutional review board members. Trop Med Health2015; 43(2): 117–122.
51.
PadhyBMGuptaPGuptaYK. Analysis of the compliance of informed consent documents with good clinical practice guideline. Contemp Clin Trials2011; 32(5): 662–666.
52.
LeCompteLLYoungSJ. Revised common rule changes to the consent process and consent form. Ochsner J2020; 20(1): 62–75.
53.
RosenfeldS. SACHRP Recommendations: November 13, 2018 Letter to the HHS Secretary. 2018.
54.
GartelGScuderiHServayC. Implementation of common rule changes to the informed consent form: a research staff and institutional review board collaboration. Ochsner J2020; 20(1): 76–80.
55.
MozerskyJWroblewskiMPSolomonED, et al. How are US institutions implementing the new key information requirement?J Clin Transl Sci2020; 4(4): 365–369.
56.
SolomonEDMozerskyJWroblewskiMP, et al. Understanding the use of optimal formatting and plain language when presenting key information in clinical trials. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics2022; 17(1–2): 177–192.
57.
YuMFischhoffBKrishnamurtiT. Implementing a new common rule requirement for informed consent: a randomized trial on adult asthma patients. MDM Policy Pract2019; 4(1): 2381468319839315.
58.
BazzanoLADurantJBrantleyPR. A modern history of informed consent and the role of key information. Ochsner J2021; 21(1): 81–85.
59.
CaballeroALeathKJGanJM. Institutional improvements in readability of written informed consent forms sustained post-revised Common Rule. J Clin Transl Sci2021; 5(1): e192.
60.
EnnisLWykesT. Sense and readability: participant information sheets for research studies. Br J Psychiatry2016; 208(2): 189–194.
61.
HaddenKBPrinceLYMooreTD, et al. Improving readability of informed consents for research at an academic medical institution. J Clin Transl Sci2017; 1(6): 361–365.
62.
WangLWMillerMJSchmittMR, et al. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm2013; 9(5): 503–516.
63.
JindalPMacDermidJC. Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of Flesch formula. Educ Health (Abingdon)2017; 30(1): 84–88.
64.
PietrzykowskiTSmilowskaK. The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension—systematic review. Trials2021; 22(1): 57.
65.
GungorBAylinMAsenaA, et al. Evaluation of legal legislation compliance and readability of clinical trial informed consent forms. Ther Innov Regul Sci2020; 54(2): 468–475.
66.
NairSCIbrahimH. GCP compliance and readability of informed consent forms from an emerging hub for clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res2015; 6(2): 104–108.
