Abstract
The aims of this study were to measure the readability of Australian based informed consent documents and determine whether informed consent readability guidelines have been established by Australian human research ethics committees (HRECs). A total of 20 informed consent documents, 10 HIV/AIDS and 10 type 2 diabetes, were measured for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Gunning Fog Index (Fog). Published guidelines and policy statements of the two local HREC who approved the 20 clinical trials under study where examined to identify whether they had any formal policies/guidelines on the readability of informed consent documents. The two HRECs were contacted via e-mail to also determine whether they utilised any informal readability standards or “rules of thumb” that may not have been mentioned in the published documents. The HIV/AIDS and type 2 diabetes informed consent documents were, on average, written at a grade 13 reading level. Formal readability standards had not been established by the two local HRECs, however, they did verify the use of informal rules for assessing readability of informed consent documents. Based on Australian literacy data, the majority of informed consent documents were written well beyond the reading ability of many Australians. Unreadable informed consent documents may result in patients rejecting trial participation altogether or conversely may result in their participating in a trial with inadequate consent. Therefore, a step toward reducing the complexity of informed consent documents may be to implement objective readability assessments into the human research ethics application and review process.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alderson, J.C., and L.F. Bachman. 2000. Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2007. Aspects of literacy: Assessed skill levels. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ProductsbyReleaseDate/59E271C8DE37A1D2CA2573A00011431F/.
Christopher, P.P., M.E. Foti, K. Roy-Bujnowski, and P.S. Appelbaum. 2007. Consent form readability and educational levels of potential participants in mental health research. Psychiatric Services 58: 227–232.
Coyne, C.A., R. Xu, P. Raich, K. Plomer, M. Dignan, L.B. Wenzel, et al. 2003. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology 21: 836–842.
Daugherty, C., M. Ratain, E. Grochowski, C. Stocking, E. Kodish, R. Mick, et al. 1995. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 13: 1062–1072.
Doak, C., L. Doak, and J. Root. 1996. Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.
Dresden, G.M., and M.A. Levitt. 2001. Modifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent process. Academic Emergency Medicine 8(3): 246–252.
Epstein, L.C., and L. Lasagna. 1969. Obtaining informed consent: form or substance. Archives of Internal Medicine 123: 682–688.
Faden, R.R., and T.L. Beauchamp. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
Falvo, D., P.K. Tippy, and B. Widmar. 2000. Patient education in your practice: a handbook for the office setting. Kansas: American Academy of Family Physicians.
Foltz, P.W., W. Kintsch, and T.K. Landauer. 1998. The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25: 285–307.
Grossman, S., S. Pinantadosi, and C. Covahey. 1994. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? Journal of Clinical Oncology 12: 2211–2215.
Grundner, T. 1980. On the readability of surgical consent forms. The New England Journal of Medicine 302: 900–902.
Gunning, R. 1973. The art of clear writing—revised. New York: McGraw Hill.
Joseph, R. 1994. Viewpoints and concerns of a clinical trial participant. Cancer 74: 2692–2693.
Klingbeil, C., M.W. Speece, and H. Schubiner. 1995. Readability of paediatric patient education materials. Clinical Pediatrics 34: 96–102.
Ley, P., and T. Florio. 1996. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychology, Health & Medicine 1: 7–28.
Mathew, J., and J. McGrath. 2002. Readability of consent forms in schizophrenia research. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 36: 564–565.
McLaughlin, G.H. 1969. SMOG grading—a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12: 639–646.
Meisel, A., L.H. Roth, and C.W. Lidz. 1977. Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent. The American Journal of Psychiatry 134: 285–289.
National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1999. Cancer risk communication: what we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs 25: 1–185.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council, and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Paasche-Orlow, M.K., H.A. Taylor, and F.L. Brancati. 2008. Readability standards for informed consent forms as compared with actual readability. The New England Journal of Medicine 348: 721–726.
Redish, J.C. 2000. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24: 132–137.
Redish, J.C., and J. Seizer. 1985. The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication 32: 46–52.
Riley, K., and J. Mackiewicz. 2003. Readability of model consent forms provided by IRBs. Professional Communication Conference, IPCC Proceedings—IEEE International, Sept 21−24, in Duluth, United States. Minnesota: Minnesota University.
Sharp, S.M. 2004. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Journal of Clinical Oncology 27: 570–575.
Stokes, A. 1978. The reliability of readability formulas. Research in Reading 1: 21–34.
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1998. Information sheets: Guidance for institutional review boards and clinical investigators. Washington: Office of Science Coordination and Communication. http://www.fed.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/informedconsent.html/.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the principal investigators and research staff of the HIV/AIDS and type 2 diabetes research centres and the members of the HRECs who were critical to the execution of this research project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buccini, L.D., Iverson, D., Caputi, P. et al. An Australian Based Study on the Readability of HIV/AIDS and Type 2 Diabetes Clinical Trial Informed Consent Documents. Bioethical Inquiry 7, 313–319 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-010-9244-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-010-9244-4