Discrepancy between participants' understanding and desire to know in informed consent: are they informed about what they really want to know?

Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2):102-106 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Background Participants' understanding of clinical trials is important in informed consent. However, little is known about what information participants really want to know. Aims To demonstrate the existence of a discrepancy between participants' understanding and their desire to know. Methods The participants in clinical trials at Seoul National University Hospital were surveyed. The survey consisted of 11 statements based on the essential elements of informed consent. The participants gave two responses to each statement on a five-point Likert scale to rate their subjective understanding and desire to know, respectively. Information discrepancy was defined as the difference between these two ratings: if understanding exceeded desire to know for a particular item, it was defined as ‘over-informed’; if desire to know exceeded understanding for a particular item, it was defined as ‘under-informed’. Results Participants reported good understanding of ‘voluntariness’, ‘duration’, ‘study involves research’ and poor understanding of ‘confidentiality’, ‘compensation’, ‘benefits’, ‘procedures’ and ‘risks or discomforts’. For ‘risks or discomforts’, ‘who to contact’, ‘voluntariness’, ‘duration’ and ‘procedures’, participants reported high desire to know compared with ‘confidentiality’, ‘purpose’, ‘study involves research’ and ‘benefits’. The elements ‘study involves research’, ‘voluntariness’, ‘duration’, ‘purpose’ and ‘who to contact’ were over-informed, while ‘compensation’, ‘risks or discomforts’, ‘procedures’, ‘confidentiality’ and ‘benefits’ were under-informed. Participants over 50 years of age, those without a college education and those whose participation was less voluntary were relatively less informed about the clinical trials. Conclusions An information discrepancy was observed between the participants' understanding and their desire to know. By putting more emphasis on under-informed elements, the quality of informed consent could be improved

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Informed consent: a primer for clinical practice.Deborah Bowman - 2012 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by John Spicer & Rehana Iqbal.
Knowing the Unknown and Informed Consent.A. T. Nuyen - 2007 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):213-223.
Consent and informational responsibility.Shaun D. Pattinson - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Must research participants understand randomization?David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):3 – 8.
Autonomy, consent and the law.Sheila McLean - 2010 - New York, N.Y.: Routledge-Cavendish.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-01-21

Downloads
76 (#213,443)

6 months
10 (#257,583)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references