• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

南非开展的研究性医学临床试验知情同意书的可读性。

The readability of informed consent forms for research studies conducted in South Africa.

机构信息

Ezintsha, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

出版信息

S Afr Med J. 2021 Feb 1;111(2):180-183. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.14752.

DOI:10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.14752
PMID:33944731
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Informed consent forms (ICFs) are used to obtain consent from participants. However the complexity and comprehensiveness of these forms may not be appropriate. Readability can be quantified by formulas in Microsoft (MS) Word, such as the Flesch Reading Ease test. The South African (SA) ethics guidelines suggest that the MS Word Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade score should be used to assess the complexity of ICFs and should be the equivalent of grade 8 level, or lower.

OBJECTIVES

To use readability formulas to determine whether current SA ICFs are appropriate for the general population.

METHODS

This was a descriptive study of a sample of English ICFs (solicited from our studies, as well as from local researchers) which received approval from local ethical review boards during the past 5 years, for prospective (≥6 months) drug studies that explored treatment and prevention of HIV, tuberculosis, diabetes or cardiovascular disease. ICFs were evaluated in MS Word for Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade, with the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index calculated using www.readabilityformulas.com. Recommended targets for easy readability are above 60 for the Flesch Reading Ease score, and less than or equal to a grade 8 reading level for the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade and SMOG.

RESULTS

A total of 75 consent forms from 35 individual research studies conducted in SA over the last 5 years were included. The consent forms had been approved by six ethics committees across seven of the SA provinces. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) Flesch Reading Ease score was 55.8 (48.7 - 59.7) and 18 (25.0%) of the ICFs had easy or standard readability, while the median (IQR) Flesch-Kincaid Grade was 10.2 (8.8 - 11.4), with 23 (30.6%) at least a grade 8 level or lower. The median (IQR) SMOG index was 9.8 (9.0 - 11.1) and 4 (5.3%) scored below grade 8 level.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-thirds of the ICFs from this study fail to meet the SA readability standard, a result matched by using alternative readability formulas. Readability can be improved with simple techniques and by actively monitoring readability metrics.

摘要

背景

知情同意书(ICF)用于获得参与者的同意。然而,这些表格的复杂性和全面性可能并不合适。微软(MS)Word 中的公式可以量化可读性,例如弗莱什阅读容易度测试。南非(SA)伦理准则建议使用 MS Word Flesch-Kincaid 阅读等级评分来评估 ICF 的复杂性,并且应该相当于 8 年级水平或更低。

目的

使用可读性公式来确定当前的南非 ICF 是否适合普通人群。

方法

这是一项对过去 5 年来在我们的研究中以及当地研究人员那里征集的英语 ICF 样本的描述性研究,这些 ICF 已获得当地伦理审查委员会的批准,用于前瞻性(≥6 个月)药物研究,以探索 HIV、结核病、糖尿病或心血管疾病的治疗和预防。在 MS Word 中,对 Flesch 阅读容易度和 Flesch-Kincaid 阅读等级进行评估,并使用 www.readabilityformulas.com 计算 SMOG 指数。简单易懂的可读性目标是 Flesch 阅读容易度得分高于 60,Flesch-Kincaid 阅读等级和 SMOG 得分不超过 8 年级阅读水平。

结果

共纳入过去 5 年在南非进行的 35 项研究中的 75 份同意书。这些同意书已经得到了六个道德委员会的批准,这些委员会分布在南非七个省份。Flesch 阅读容易度评分的中位数(四分位距(IQR))为 55.8(48.7-59.7),18 份 ICF 具有简单或标准可读性,而 Flesch-Kincaid 等级的中位数(IQR)为 10.2(8.8-11.4),其中 23 份至少为 8 年级或更低。SMOG 指数的中位数(IQR)为 9.8(9.0-11.1),4 份(5.3%)的得分低于 8 年级水平。

结论

这项研究中的三分之二的 ICF 不符合南非的可读性标准,这一结果与使用替代可读性公式的结果相匹配。通过使用简单的技术和积极监测可读性指标,可以提高可读性。

相似文献

1
The readability of informed consent forms for research studies conducted in South Africa.南非开展的研究性医学临床试验知情同意书的可读性。
S Afr Med J. 2021 Feb 1;111(2):180-183. doi: 10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.14752.
2
Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: A survey of informed consents from FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.评估医疗器械研究知情同意书的可读性和理解度:对 FDA 设备和放射健康中心知情同意书的调查。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2019 Oct;85:105831. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.105831. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
3
Readability of informed consent forms in clinical trials conducted in a skin research center.皮肤研究中心开展的临床试验中知情同意书的可读性
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2016 Jul 3;9:7. eCollection 2016.
4
Readability of consent forms in veterinary clinical research.兽医临床研究中知情同意书的可读性
J Vet Intern Med. 2019 Mar;33(2):350-355. doi: 10.1111/jvim.15462. Epub 2019 Feb 22.
5
Unveiling readability challenges: An extensive analysis of consent document accessibility in clinical trials.揭示可读性挑战:对临床试验中同意书可及性的广泛分析
J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Sep 16;8(1):e125. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.595. eCollection 2024.
6
Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis.爱尔兰和英国临床研究患者信息手册及同意书的可读性与可理解性:一项回顾性定量分析
BMJ Open. 2020 Sep 3;10(9):e037994. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037994.
7
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.主要眼科协会在线患者教育材料评估。
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104.
8
Orthodontic treatment consent forms: A readability analysis.正畸治疗同意书:可读性分析。
J Orthod. 2022 Mar;49(1):32-38. doi: 10.1177/14653125211033301. Epub 2021 Jul 29.
9
Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability.知情同意书的可读性标准与实际可读性对比
N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 20;348(8):721-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021212.
10
Assessing the Readability of Clinical Trial Consent Forms for Surgical Specialties.评估外科专业临床试验知情同意书的可读性。
J Surg Res. 2024 Apr;296:711-719. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.01.045. Epub 2024 Feb 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Readability of health research informed consent forms: case of the National Health Research Ethics Committee in Tanzania.健康研究知情同意书的可读性:以坦桑尼亚国家卫生研究伦理委员会为例。
BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Apr 22;26(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01200-w.
2
Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review.医疗和外科临床操作知情同意书的可读性:一项系统评价
Clin Pract. 2025 Jan 24;15(2):26. doi: 10.3390/clinpract15020026.
3
Readability of informed consent documents and its impact on consent refusal rate.
知情同意书的可读性及其对同意拒绝率的影响。
Perspect Clin Res. 2025 Jan-Mar;16(1):38-43. doi: 10.4103/picr.picr_322_23. Epub 2024 Aug 30.
4
Unveiling readability challenges: An extensive analysis of consent document accessibility in clinical trials.揭示可读性挑战:对临床试验中同意书可及性的广泛分析
J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Sep 16;8(1):e125. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.595. eCollection 2024.
5
Beyond translations, perspectives for researchers to consider to enhance comprehension during consent processes for health research in sub-saharan Africa: a scoping review.超越翻译:撒哈拉以南非洲健康研究知情同意过程中增强理解的研究人员视角:范围综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Jun 21;24(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00920-1.
6
A qualitative study of stakeholder and researcher perspectives of community engagement practices for HIV vaccine clinical trials in South Africa.南非艾滋病毒疫苗临床试验中社区参与实践的利益相关者和研究人员观点的定性研究。
J Community Psychol. 2023 Apr;51(3):998-1015. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22951. Epub 2022 Nov 7.