AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hopper, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hartzel, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hopper, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hartzel, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 164, 493-496, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do patients understand?

KD Hopper, TR TenHave and J Hartzel
Department of Radiology, Penn State University, Hershey 17033.

OBJECTIVE. Informed consent is often obtained in diagnostic radiology, especially for invasive procedures and research studies. However, how much the average patient actually understands of the information contained in these informed consent forms is uncertain. A cross section of the clinical and research consent forms used in diagnostic radiology was evaluated with respect to their readability, that is, how easy or difficult they were to understand. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The active members of the Association of University Radiologists were solicited to provide copies of their clinical and research informed consent forms. After eliminating duplicates, we digitized the forms and used a computer program to evaluate their readability. Computer readability assessment allows the rapid study of an entire document by a variety of readability formulas (Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch, and Fog). RESULTS. We received 549 different consent forms from 156 institutions; 265 forms were intended primarily for clinical use and 284 were used primarily for research. Although the clinical consent forms were only 41% as long as those for research, a statistical comparison showed them to be harder to understand (p < 0.005). The mean readability score (years of education needed to understand) for all 265 clinical consent forms was 15 versus 12 for the research forms. The most complex clinical consent forms were those written by hospitals for any type of procedure or operation (the generic surgical or procedure consent form). On average, this type of clinical consent form required at least a college education to understand. CONCLUSION. Our results show that most consent forms used in radiology practice are too complex for the average patient to understand. The increased complexity of clinical consent forms, especially the generic surgical or procedure consent forms, as compared with research consent forms, is probably a product of the decreased attention given to the clinical consent forms, the bureaucratic and legal requirements of the clinical forms, and the lack of physician participation in preparing these forms.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. I. Lee, H. V. Flaster, A. H. Haims, E. P. Monico, and H. P. Forman
Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers.
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2006; 187(2): 282 - 287.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin TrialsHome page
P. Guarino, D. Elbourne, J. Carpenter, and P. Peduzzi
Consumer involvement in consent document development: a multicenter cluster randomized trial to assess study participants' understanding
Clinical Trials, February 1, 2006; 3(1): 19 - 30.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
C. A. Coyne, R. Xu, P. Raich, K. Plomer, M. Dignan, L. B. Wenzel, D. Fairclough, T. Habermann, L. Schnell, S. Quella, et al.
Randomized, Controlled Trial of an Easy-to-Read Informed Consent Statement for Clinical Trial Participation: A Study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2003; 21(5): 836 - 842.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch SurgHome page
M. M. Bottrell, H. Alpert, R. L. Fischbach, and L. L. Emanuel
Hospital Informed Consent for Procedure Forms: Facilitating Quality Patient-Physician Interaction
Arch Surg, January 1, 2000; 135(1): 26 - 33.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
H. B. Jimison, P. P. Sher, R. Appleyard, and Y. LeVernois
The Use of Multimedia in the Informed Consent Process
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 1998; 5(3): 245 - 256.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.