Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e22696. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022696. Epub 2011 Oct 27.
Informed consent (IC) has been an international standard for decades for the ethical conduct of clinical trials. Yet frequently study participants have incomplete understanding of key issues, a problem exacerbated by language barriers or lack of familiarity with research concepts. Few investigators measure participant comprehension of IC, while even fewer conduct interim assessments once a trial is underway.
We assessed comprehension of IC using a 20-question true/false quiz administered in 6-month intervals in the context of a placebo-controlled, randomized trial for the prevention of tuberculosis among HIV-infected adults in Botswana (2004-2009). Quizzes were offered in both Setswana and English. To enroll in the TB trial, participants were required to have ≥ 16/20 correct responses. We examined concepts understood and the degree to which understanding changed over three-years. We analyzed 5,555 quizzes from 1,835 participants. The participants' highest education levels were: 28% primary, 59% secondary, 9% tertiary and 7% no formal education. Eighty percent of participants passed the enrollment quiz (Quiz1) on their first attempt and the remainder passed on their second attempt. Those having higher than primary education and those who took the quiz in English were more likely to receive a passing score on their first attempt (adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, 3.1 (2.4-4.0) and 1.5 (1.2, 1.9), respectively). The trial's purpose or procedures were understood by 90-100% of participants, while 44-77% understood randomization, placebos, or risks. Participants who failed Quiz1 on their initial attempt were more likely to fail quizzes later in the trial. Pass rates improved with quiz re-administration in subsequent years.
Administration of a comprehension quiz at enrollment and during follow-up was feasible in a large, international collaboration and efficiently determined IC comprehension by trial participants. Strategies to improve understanding of concepts like placebos and randomization are needed. Comprehension assessments throughout a study may reinforce key concepts.
知情同意(IC)是几十年来临床研究伦理行为的国际标准。然而,研究参与者经常对关键问题的理解不完整,这个问题因语言障碍或缺乏对研究概念的熟悉而加剧。很少有研究人员测量参与者对 IC 的理解,而即使是那些进行临床试验的研究人员,也很少进行中期评估。
我们在博茨瓦纳(2004-2009 年)开展的一项针对 HIV 感染成人的结核病预防的安慰剂对照、随机试验中,使用一个 20 道是非题的测验,每 6 个月评估一次知情同意理解情况。测验提供茨瓦纳语和英语两种语言。参与者需要答对至少 16/20 道题才能参加结核病试验。我们检查了参与者理解的概念以及理解在三年内的变化程度。我们分析了来自 1835 名参与者的 5555 次测验。参与者的最高教育水平为:28%小学,59%中学,9%大学,7%没有正式教育。80%的参与者在第一次尝试时通过了注册测验(Quiz1),其余的在第二次尝试时通过。受教育程度高于小学和用英语参加测验的参与者更有可能在第一次尝试时获得及格分数(调整后的优势比和 95%置信区间,3.1(2.4-4.0)和 1.5(1.2, 1.9))。90-100%的参与者理解试验的目的或程序,而 44-77%的参与者理解随机化、安慰剂或风险。在初次尝试中未能通过 Quiz1 的参与者在试验后期更有可能无法通过测验。在随后的几年中,通过重新进行测验,及格率有所提高。
在大型国际合作中,在注册和随访期间进行理解测验是可行的,并且可以有效地确定试验参与者的知情同意理解情况。需要制定提高对安慰剂和随机化等概念理解的策略。在整个研究过程中进行理解评估可能会强化关键概念。