Suppr超能文献

风湿病学研究中患者信息及同意书的可读性

Readability of patient information and consent documents in rheumatological studies.

作者信息

Hamnes Bente, van Eijk-Hustings Yvonne, Primdahl Jette

机构信息

Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Margrethe Grundvigs vei 6, 2609, Lillehammer, Norway.

Department of Patient & Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Jul 16;17(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0126-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Before participation in medical research an informed consent must be obtained. This study investigates whether the readability of patient information and consent documents (PICDs) corresponds to the average educational level of participants in rheumatological studies in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.

METHODS

24 PICDs from studies were collected and readability was assessed independently using the Gunning's Fog Index (FOG) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) grading.

RESULTS

The mean score for the FOG and SMOG grades were 14.2 (9.0-19.0) and 14.2 (12-17) respectively. The mean FOG and SMOG grades were 12.7 and 13.3 in the Dutch studies, 15.0 and 14.9 in the Danish studies, and 14.6 and 14.3 in the Norwegian studies, respectively. Out of the 2865 participants, more than 57 % had a lower educational level than the highest readability score calculated in the individual study.

CONCLUSIONS

As the readability level of the PICDs did not match the participants' educational level, consent may not have been valid, as the participants may have had a limited understanding of what they agreed to participate in. There should be more focus on the readability of PICDs. National guidelines for how to write clear and unambiguous PICDs in simple and easily understandable language could increase the focus on the readability of PICD.

摘要

背景

在参与医学研究之前,必须获得知情同意书。本研究调查了患者信息和同意书(PICDs)的可读性是否与荷兰、丹麦和挪威风湿病学研究参与者的平均教育水平相符。

方法

收集了来自各项研究的24份PICDs,并使用冈宁雾度指数(FOG)和简化的难解词汇测量法(SMOG)分级独立评估可读性。

结果

FOG和SMOG分级的平均得分分别为14.2(9.0 - 19.0)和14.2(12 - 17)。荷兰研究中FOG和SMOG分级的平均得分分别为12.7和13.3,丹麦研究中分别为15.0和14.9,挪威研究中分别为14.6和14.3。在2865名参与者中,超过57%的人的教育水平低于个体研究中计算出的最高可读性得分。

结论

由于PICDs的可读性水平与参与者的教育水平不匹配,同意书可能无效,因为参与者可能对他们同意参与的内容理解有限。应该更加关注PICDs的可读性。关于如何用简单易懂的语言撰写清晰明确的PICDs的国家指南可以增加对PICD可读性的关注。

相似文献

1
Readability of patient information and consent documents in rheumatological studies.
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Jul 16;17(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0126-0.
2
The readability of informed consent forms for research studies conducted in South Africa.
S Afr Med J. 2021 Feb 1;111(2):180-183. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.14752.
3
Readability of Invasive Procedure Consent Forms.
Clin Transl Sci. 2015 Dec;8(6):830-3. doi: 10.1111/cts.12364. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
4
Assessment of Length and Readability of Informed Consent Documents for COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Apr 1;4(4):e2110843. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10843.
5
Readability Analysis of Otolaryngology Consent Documents on the iMed Consent Platform.
Mil Med. 2023 Mar 20;188(3-4):780-785. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usab484.
6
Do hospital consent forms for cardiology procedures meet health literacy standards? Evaluation of understandability and readability.
Patient Educ Couns. 2022 May;105(5):1254-1260. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.027. Epub 2021 Sep 14.
7
The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):82-94. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2304.
8
Readability of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Spine Surgery and Implications for Health Literacy.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024 Jun 1;49(11):811-817. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004761. Epub 2023 Jun 27.

引用本文的文献

3
[Making prostate cancer research accessible: chatGPT-4 as a tool to enhance lay communication].
Urologie. 2025 Jun;64(6):574-583. doi: 10.1007/s00120-025-02558-w. Epub 2025 Apr 7.
5
Readability analysis of ChatGPT's responses on lung cancer.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 26;14(1):17234. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67293-2.
6
Lessons to be learned when designing comprehensible patient-oriented online information about temporomandibular disorders.
J Oral Rehabil. 2025 Feb;52(2):222-229. doi: 10.1111/joor.13798. Epub 2024 Jul 21.
7
IVC filter - assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet.
J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2024 Mar;12(2):101695. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2023.101695. Epub 2023 Oct 26.
9
An evaluation of the process of informed consent: views from research participants and staff.
Trials. 2021 Aug 18;22(1):544. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05493-1.

本文引用的文献

1
Informed consent in clinical research; Do patients understand what they have signed?
Farm Hosp. 2016 May 1;40(3):209-18. doi: 10.7399/fh.2016.40.3.10411.
2
Sense and readability: participant information sheets for research studies.
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;208(2):189-94. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.156687. Epub 2015 Sep 17.
3
Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Medical Procedures in Croatia.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 16;10(9):e0138017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138017. eCollection 2015.
4
Men's experiences of living with ankylosing spondylitis: a qualitative study.
Musculoskeletal Care. 2015 Mar;13(1):31-41. doi: 10.1002/msc.1082. Epub 2014 Oct 3.
5
How well informed is the informed consent for cancer clinical trials?
Clin Trials. 2014 Dec;11(6):686-8. doi: 10.1177/1740774514548734. Epub 2014 Aug 18.
6
The association of socioeconomic status and symptom severity in persons with fibromyalgia.
J Rheumatol. 2014 Jul;41(7):1398-404. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.131515. Epub 2014 Jun 15.
7
Patients' recollection and understanding of informed consent: a literature review.
ANZ J Surg. 2014 Apr;84(4):207-10. doi: 10.1111/ans.12555.
9
Measuring health literacy - the Swedish Functional Health Literacy scale.
Scand J Caring Sci. 2015 Mar;29(1):165-72. doi: 10.1111/scs.12125. Epub 2014 Mar 17.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验