4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Impact of detailed informed consent on research subjects' participation: A prospective, randomized trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 269-275

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.06.026

关键词

research; informed consent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was undertaken to measure potential research subjects' participation in a survey research design, based on level and type of informed consent required before enrollment. In this prospective, randomized trial, 300 eligible Emergency Department participants were randomized to one of three groups: verbal consent (n = 100), limited written consent (n = 100), and detailed written consent with signature In = 100). The consent was related to a self-administered patient satisfaction survey. The primary outcome was level of participation, where participation was categorized as full, limited, or refusal. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CI) constructed about proportions were used to assess differences in participation rates between the three consent groups. Among 300 participants, no demographic differences were found between groups for age or gender. Participants who were randomized to complete the detailed written consent had a significantly lower rate of full participation (72%) when compared to those randomized to verbal consent (85%; mean difference between groups 13%, 95% CI 2% to 24%) and to those with limited written consent (84%; mean difference between groups 12%, 95% CI 1% to 23%). Participants randomized to detailed written consent also had a significantly higher refusal rate (23%) when compared to those in the limited written group (12%; mean difference between groups -11%, 95% CI -21% to -1%). The length and type of informed consent required affected potential research subject participation in a survey research design. Participants who were asked to sign a detailed written informed consent document had a lower rate of participation compared to those with verbal or limited written consent. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据