Inadequate health literacy may impair research subjects' ability to participate adequately in the informed consent (IC) process. Our aim is to evaluate the evidence supporting interventions, to improve comprehension of the IC process in low literacy subjects.
We performed a MEDLINE database search (1966 to November 2011) supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key relevant articles. We selected all studies in which a modification of the IC was tested to improve comprehension in low literacy populations. Study design, quality criteria, population, interventions and outcomes for each trial were extracted. The main outcome evaluated was comprehension, measured using a written test or verbal comprehension.
Our search strategy yielded 281 studies, of which only six met our eligibility criteria. The six studies included 1620 research participants. The studies predominantly included populations that were older (median age 61, range 48-64), ethnic minority, and with literacy level of 8th grade or below. Only one study had a randomized design. The specific intervention differed in each study. Two of the studies included the teach-back method or teach to goal method and achieved the highest level of comprehension. Two studies changed the readability level of the IC and resulted in the lowest comprehension among study subjects.
The evidence supporting interventions to improve the informed consent process in low literacy populations is extremely limited. Among the interventions evaluated, having a study team member spend more time talking one-on-one to study participants was the most effective strategy for improving informed consent understanding; however, this finding is based on the results of a single study.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Given the increasing prevalence of diabetes and the lack of patients reaching recommended therapeutic goals, novel models of team-based care are emerging. These teams typically include a combination of physicians, nurses, case managers, pharmacists, and community-based peer health promoters (HPs). Recent evidence supports the role of pharmacists in diabetes management to improve glycemic control, as they offer expertise in medication management with the ability to collaboratively intensify therapy. However, few studies of pharmacy-based models of care have focused on low income, minority populations that are most in need of intervention. Alternatively, HP interventions have focused largely upon low income minority groups, addressing their unique psychosocial and environmental challenges in diabetes self-care. This study will evaluate the impact of HPs as a complement to pharmacist management in a randomized controlled trial.
The primary aim of this randomized trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical pharmacists and HPs on diabetes behaviors (including healthy eating, physical activity, and medication adherence), hemoglobin A1c, blood pressure, and LDL-cholesterol levels. A total of 300 minority patients with uncontrolled diabetes from the University of Illinois Medical Center ambulatory network in Chicago will be randomized to either pharmacist management alone, or pharmacist management plus HP support. After one year, the pharmacist-only group will be intensified by the addition of HP support and maintenance will be assessed by phasing out HP support from the pharmacist plus HP group (crossover design). Outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months. In addition, program and healthcare utilization data will be incorporated into cost and cost-effectiveness evaluations of pharmacist management with and without HP support.
The study will evaluate an innovative, integrated approach to chronic disease management in minorities with poorly controlled diabetes. The approach is comprised of clinic-based pharmacists and community-based health promoters collaborating together. They will target patient-level factors (e.g., lack of adherence to lifestyle modification and medications) and provider-level factors (e.g., clinical inertia) that contribute to poor clinical outcomes in diabetes. Importantly, the study design and analytic approach will help determine the differential and combined impact of adherence to lifestyle changes, medication, and intensification on clinical outcomes.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01498159
BMC Public Health 10/2012; 12(1):891. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-891 · 2.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Clinical trials (CTs) are important for advancing public health and medical research, however, CT recruitment is challenging. The high reading level of CT information and the technical language of providers or researchers can serve as barriers to recruitment. Prior studies on the informed consent process found that consent documents often contain complicated terms. Limited research has examined resources specifically used to recruit individuals into CTs. The purpose of this study was to examine the content and readability of CT recruitment education resources in one U.S. state. Convenience sampling was employed for the collection of CT recruitment materials. A codebook was developed based on previous content analyses and emergent themes from statewide focus groups about CTs. A total of 127 materials were collected and analyzed (37.8% print; 62.2% Web). Most content was focused on treatment-related CTs (60.6%). Inclusion criteria related to specific disease conditions (88.9%) and age (73.6%) were described most often. Only 30% of resources had an explicit call to action. Overall mean readability level was Grade 11.7. Web-based materials were significantly more likely to be written at a higher grade level than print materials (p ≤ .0001). Readability also differed significantly according to resource distributor/creator, CT type, person quoted, and presence or absence of inclusion criteria and an explicit call to action. Our study provides insight into the content and difficulty level of recruitment materials intended to provide initial information about a CT. Future studies should examine individuals' comprehension of recruitment materials and how participation intentions are associated with recruitment messages.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Informed consent is premised on the participants' understanding the scope of the research and the associated risks and benefits. The objective was to evaluate the improvement in knowledge in a population unfamiliar with clinical trial concepts about "what it means to be part of a clinical trial" using an innovative educational tool called the 'Speaking Book'.
This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at a research site in Uganda. 201 participants were randomized to: 1) clinical trials information session control arm, or 2) clinical trials information session followed by instruction in the use of the Speaking Book with a take-home copy (intervention arm). After the session, participants of both groups completed a 22-item multiple-choice test on the rights and responsibilities of participants. Participants returned after one week to complete the same test to assess knowledge retention. The mean pre- and post-test score difference was assessed according to trial arm using an unpaired t-test of proportions.
Ninety-one (90%) participants completed both the initial and follow-up tests in the control arm and 100 (100%) in the intervention arm. The average age of participants was 38 years, 53% were female and 67% were employed; 20% had previously been invited to participate in a clinical trial; of these, 19% had participated. The mean difference in proportion of correct responses from test 1 to test 2 was 2.7% (95%CI 0.3%-5.0%) for the control arm and 11.6% (95%CI 9.3%-13.7%) for the intervention arm (t-score= -5.3, p-value<0.0001).
Participants who had instruction in the use of the Speaking Book had a larger increase in knowledge than those who had no access to this tool. To better engage patients unfamiliar with clinical trial concepts, innovative educational techniques can assist to increase knowledge to make an informed decision about participation in a clinical trial.
Milagros D Silva, Margaux Genoff, Alexandra Zaballa, Sarah Jewell, Stacy Stabler, Francesca M Gany, Lisa C Diamond
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.