Informed consent forms (ICFS) maintain the integrity of research ethics and preserve participants' rights. Using cross-sectional online survey data on sexuality and sexual practices of private university students from Lebanon, this paper questions whether participants thoroughly read ICFs, and whether time taken to read ICFs is associated with data completeness. A total of 2,534 surveys were completed; a median time of 18.66 seconds was taken to read the 815-word ICF; 65% of participants consented within the first 30 seconds and 90% in less than the minimum predicted time (2.7 minutes). Our data indicates potential participant neglect of ICFs, raising the question of whether participants who endorse an informed consent form are truly informed of the study objectives and their rights.
BurmanW., & DaumR. (2009). Grinding to a halt: The effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvements efforts. Clinical Infectious Diseases49, 328–335.
2.
ClelandJ.BoermaJ. T., & WeirS. S. (2004). Monitoring sexual behaviour in general populations: A synthesis of lessons of the past decade. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 80, 1–7.
3.
CrowG.WilesR.HeathS., & CharlesV. (2006). Research ethics and data quality: The implications of informed consent. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(2), 83–95.
4.
DeschK.LiJ.KimS.LaventhalN.MetzgerK.SiemieniakD., & GinsburgD. (2011). Analysis of informed consent document utilization in a minimal-risk genetic study. Annuals of Internal Medicine, 155, 316–322.
5.
FentonK. A.JohnsonA. M., & McManusS. (2001). Measuring sexual behaviour: Methodological challenges in survey research. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 77, 84–92.
6.
GrovesR. M.PresserS., & DipkoS. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2–31.
7.
HochhauserM. (2000). The informed consent form: Document development and evaluation. Drug Informational Journal, 34(4), 1309.
8.
KimS.UbelP., & De VriesD. (2009). Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature, 457, 534–535.
9.
LantosJ. (2009). It is time to professionalize the institutional review boards. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163(12), 1163–1164.
10.
LeggeG. E.PelliD. G.RubinG. S., & SchleskeM. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading: I. Normal vision. Vision Research, 25(2), 239–252.
11.
Hesse-BiberNagy S.J., & LeavyP. (2009). The practice of qualitative research. Sage Publications.
12.
SingerE. (1978). Informed consent: Consequences for response rate and response quality in social surveys. American Sociological Review, 43(2), 144–162.
13.
StephensonR.GrabbeK.VwalikaB.AhmedY.VwalikaC.HaworthA.. (2010). The influence of informed consent content on study participants contraceptive knowledge and concerns. Studies in Family Planning, 41(3), 217–224.
14.
StunkelL.BensonM.McLellanL.SinaiiN.BedaridaG.EmanuelE., & GradyC. (2010). Comprehension and informed consent: Assessing the effects of a short consent form. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 32(4), 1–9.
15.
VarnhagenC. K.GushtaM.DanielsJ.PetersT. C.ParmarN.LawD.. (2005). How informed is online informed consent?Ethics and Behavior, 15(1), 37–48.
