4.8 Article

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey

期刊

LANCET
卷 358, 期 9295, 页码 1772-1777

出版社

LANCET LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [T32 HS00063] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Investigators have to obtain informed consent before enrolling participants in clinical trials. We wanted to measure the quality of understanding among participants in clinical trials of cancer therapies, to identify correlates of increased understanding, and to assess providers' beliefs about clinical research. We also sought evidence of therapeutic misconceptions in participants and providers. Methods We sent a standard questionnaire to 287 adult patients with cancer who had recently enrolled in a clinical trial at one of three affiliated institutions, and surveyed the provider who obtained each patient's consent. Findings 207 of 287 (72%) patients responded. 90% (186) of these respondents were satisfied with the informed consent process and most considered themselves to be well informed. Nevertheless, many did not recognise nonstandard treatment (74%), the potential for incremental risk from participation (63%), the unproven nature of the treatment (70%), the uncertainty of benefits to self (29%), or that trials are done mainly to benefit future patients (25%). In multivariate analysis, increased knowledge was associated with college education, speaking only English at home, use of the US National Cancer Institute consent form template, not signing the consent form at initial discussion, presence of a nurse, and careful reading of the consent form. Only 28 of 61 providers (46%) recognised that the main reason for clinical trials is benefit to future patients. Interpretation Misconceptions about cancer clinical trials are frequent among trial participants, and physician/investigators might share some of these misconceptions. Efforts to educate providers and participants about the underlying goals of clinical trials are needed.

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

4.8
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