PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S J Philipson

Publications and source records attributed to S J Philipson.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Effectiveness of a writing improvement intervention program on the readability of the research informed consent document.

BACKGROUND: Problems with the comprehensibility of human research informed consent have been documented since the 1970s, and efforts aimed at rewriting consents have not been successful in consistently producing more readable consents. This study employed researched principles of reading comprehension research to create writing intervention program designed to help the research writer produce more comprehensible informed consent documents. The purpose of this study was to determine if this intervention program was effective. METHOD: The key component of the writing improvement intervention packet was a newly formatted consent form that contained annotated instructions for researchers on how to write each section for optimum comprehension. The resulting consent forms were evaluated using a Readability and Processability Form (RPF). The RPF is based on reading research and includes the Fry Scale, which yields an approximate grade reading level. The RPF assigned points to each of the 20 areas of comprehension analysis according to strict scoring criteria, and target scores were established by the authors in consultation with the hospital institutional review board. RESULTS: We evaluated 66 post-intervention informed consents. The mean readability and processability score was 62, resulting in the RPF classification of "good." The established readability and processability target range was good to excellent or 61-100 points; 66% of the forms scored in this range. In our 1995 pre-intervention study, the corresponding score was 12%. The target range for grade reading level was 8th grade: 53% scored in that range as compared with 4% in 1995. A question-by-question analysis of each of the 20 checklist items on the RPF identified important aspects of the consent writing that improved and others that were still weak and needed improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The Hartford Hospital writing improvement intervention program was associated with the production of more comprehensible informed consent documents. Using the intervention materials, investigators from a variety of departments could function independently to produce readable consent forms. This program may help others who wish to assist their research departments in creating consents that are written for optimal reading comprehension.

Cognition↗

Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change.

BACKGROUND: Ninety million Americans are reported to have low literacy skills, and the problems associated with illiteracy permeate all areas of our society, including medical research. The purpose of this study was to determine the readability and comprehensibility of human research informed consent forms using established reading comprehension processes. Further, if comprehension problems were present in the forms, the study sought to identify the exact nature of these difficulties and identify specific areas where the forms could be rewritten to increase readability and understanding. METHODS: All human research informed consents approved by Hartford Hospital in 1993 were evaluated by a Readability and Processability Form (RPF) based on reading research, including the Fry Scale which yields an approximate grade reading level. The RPF assigned points to each of the 20 areas of analysis according to strict scoring criteria, and target scores were established by the authors in consultation with the hospital. RESULTS: Seventy-six informed consent forms were evaluated, and neither the Fry score or the RPF score was in the target range. Ninety-six percent of the forms were found to have readability levels higher than the target level (8th grade). The mean readability and processability score was 46, resulting in the classification, Minimally Adequate/Needs Improvement. (The target range was Good, 61-100.) A question by question analysis of each of the 20 checklist items on the RPF identified important aspects of text writing style that were scored as Unacceptable or Poor. CONCLUSIONS: The descriptive data indicates that there were problems with the readability of the informed consent documents studied. The prescriptive portion of this study provides researchers with information on specific areas where their forms need to be studied and rewritten. The comprehension problems found in this study may alert others to similar problems and may provide the basis for other institutional review boards (IRBs) to study their consent forms in order to ensure that the interests of both the patient and the researcher are protected and that the obtained consent is truly informed.

Comprehension↗