CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Informed consent-uninformed participants: Shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement
Tác giả
Perrault E.K.; Nazione S.A.
Năm xuất bản
2016
Source title
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Số trích dẫn
20
DOI
10.1177/1556264616654610
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
As informed consent forms continue to lengthen, are these lengthening forms helping to create better informed participants? The aim of this research was to determine whether the length of consent forms affected reading frequency and comprehension, and to provide recommendations on how to improve consent forms in the social sciences so they are more likely to be read. A quasi-experiment was conducted using actual consent forms at two liberal arts schools, one requiring a long form (463 words, n = 73) and one requiring a shorter form (236 words, n = 57). Participants exposed to the shorter form reported fully reading, or at least skimming the form more frequently than those exposed to the longer form. Those exposed to the shorter form also comprehended more of the form's information. The majority of participants indicated consent forms need to be shortened if researchers want future participants to be more likely to read these forms' contents. Additional recommendations are discussed. © The Author(s) 2016.
Từ khóa
Comprehension; Consent forms; Informed consent; IRB; Length
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albala I., Doyle M., Appelbaum P.S., The evolution of consent forms for research: A quarter century of changes, IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 32, 3, pp. 7-11, (2010); Ben-Shahar O., Why do we blindly sign terms of service agreements? (Interviewer Audie Cornish, All Things Considered), National Public Radio, (2014); Burgess M.M., Proposing modesty for informed consent, Social Science & Medicine, 65, pp. 2284-2295, (2007); Goldstein A.O., Frasier P., Curtis P., Reid A., Kreher N.E., Consent form readability in university-sponsored research, The Journal of Family Practice, 42, pp. 606-611, (1996); Gunsalus C.K., Bruner E.M., Burbules N.C., Dash L., Finkin M., Goldberg J.P., Aronson D., The Illinois White paper improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB "mission creep. , Qualitative Inquiry, 13, pp. 617-649, (2007); Klitzman R., How IRBs view and make decisions about consent forms, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8, pp. 8-19, (2013); Menikoff J., The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review, The New England Journal of Medicine, 363, pp. 1591-1593, (2010); Peterson B.T., Clancy S.J., Champion K., McLarty J.W., Improving readability of consent forms: What the computers may not tell you, IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 14, 6, pp. 6-8, (1992); Philipson S.J., Doyle M.A., Gabram S.G., Nightingale C., Philipson E.H., Informed consent for research: A study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change, Journal of Investigative Medicine, 43, pp. 459-467, (1995); Priestly W., Instructional typographies using desktop publishing techniques to produce effective learning and training materials, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 7, pp. 153-163, (1991); Sauro J., Do Users Read License Agreements? [Web Log post], (2011); Schrag Z.M., The case against ethics review in the social sciences, Research Ethics, 7, pp. 120-131, (2011); Silk K.J., Perrault E.K., Neuberger L., Rogers A., Atkin C., Barlow J., Duncan D.M., Translating and testing breast cancer risk reduction messages for mothers of adolescent girls, Journal of Health Communication, 19, pp. 226-243, (2014); Smith S.W., Clark-Hitt R., Nazione S., Russell J., Silk K., Atkin C., The effects of heuristic cues, motivation, and ability on systematic processing of information about breast cancer environmental factors, Journal of Health Communication, 18, pp. 845-865, (2013); Stunkel L., Benson M., McLellan L., Sinah N., Bedarida G., Emanuel E., Grady C., Comprehension and informed consent: Assessing the effect of a short consent form, IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 32, 4, pp. 1-9, (2010); U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Belmont Report, (1979); U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45: Public Welfare, Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects, (2009); Varnhagen C.K., Gushta M., Daniels J., Peters T.C., Parmar N., Law D., Johnson T., How informed is online informed consent?, Ethics & Behavior, 15, pp. 37-48, (2005); Whitney S.N., Alcser K., Schneider C.E., McCullough L.B., McGuire A.L., Volk R.J., Principal investigator views of the IRB system, International Journal of Medical Sciences, 5, pp. 68-72, (2008); Young D.R., Hooker D.T., Freeberg F.E., Informed consent documents: Increasing comprehension by reducing reading level, IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 12, 3, pp. 1-5, (1990)
Nơi xuất bản
SAGE Publications Inc.
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus