Patients' perceptions on informed consent and the quality of information disclosure in clinical trials
References (13)
- et al.
Randomised comparison of informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer
Br Med J
(1986) - et al.
Impact of risk communication on accrual, regimen, and follow up compliance
- et al.
Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice
(1987) - et al.
Patients', parents' and oncologists' perception of informed consent for bone marrow transplantation
Med Paediatr Oncol
(1989) - et al.
Determinants of patient participation in clinical trials in the context of informed consent: why patients enter a clinical trial or not
(1995) - et al.
Patient assessments of their care
Cited by (64)
Altruism: Scoping review of the literature and future directions for HIV cure-related research
2020, Journal of Virus EradicationCitation Excerpt :It may be motivated by social conditions, such as natural disasters, war and genocide,24,25 by socio-political factors, such as social class and entrenched ideology, and by established relationships with particular individuals or social identity groups, such as parents or religious communities.26,27 Altruism is a key motivating factor for participation in clinical research but is often suffused with the desire for personal benefit.3,28–32 Altruism may also be tied to research design factors, such as the trial design itself, presentation of safety information,33 quality of life, and financial issues.34
Determinants of informed consent in a cataract surgery clinical trial: Why patients participate
2012, Canadian Journal of OphthalmologyCitation Excerpt :The variables measured in the questionnaire concerning general health perceptions and patients' self-defined medical histories are relevant to explaining patients' perceptions of disclosure of information. In addition, general attitudes, evaluations, and values concerning medical care, research, and institutions are expected to explain patients' perceptions of risks, discomforts, and benefits.3,9 Concepts related to patients' expectations, attitudes, and perceptions were studied by using close-ended multiple questions with Likert-scale items (responses graded from 1 to 4, 4 being the most important).13
A multistep recruitment strategy to a participant-intensive clinical trial
2010, Applied Nursing ResearchFrom information processing to behavioral intentions: Exploring cancer patients' motivations for clinical trial enrollment
2010, Patient Education and CounselingHealthy Women's Motivators and Barriers to Participation in a Breast Cancer Cohort Study: A Qualitative Study
2009, Annals of EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :Nonetheless, it was clear from the MMHS respondent focus groups that complete comprehension of the study did not factor greatly into MMHS respondents’ decisions to participate. There was very little difference in detailed knowledge about the study between the respondent and non-respondent groups, which corresponds with other studies examining participant and non-participant study understanding (30). Lack of study understanding is problematic in the context of informed consent.
Personal physicians as study investigators: Impact on patients' willingness to participate in clinical trials
2009, Contemporary Clinical TrialsCitation Excerpt :Increased use of personal physicians as study investigators poses a number of benefits that extend beyond the issue of expedited recruitment. Many patients fail to read informed consent forms thoroughly, thus placing a premium on verbal information from a clinician to inform the patient's evaluation of potential risk and benefit [10]. Using a patient's personal physician for consent capitalizes on communication that is already established and central to the patient–provider relationship.