a booklet on participants’ rights to improve consent for clinical research a randomized trial参与者的权利小册子来改善同意随机试验的临床研究.pdfVIP

a booklet on participants’ rights to improve consent for clinical research a randomized trial参与者的权利小册子来改善同意随机试验的临床研究.pdf

  1. 1、有哪些信誉好的足球投注网站(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。。
  2. 2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  3. 3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
  4. 4、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
  5. 5、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们
  6. 6、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
  7. 7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
a booklet on participants’ rights to improve consent for clinical research a randomized trial参与者的权利小册子来改善同意随机试验的临床研究

A Booklet on Participants’ Rights to Improve Consent for Clinical Research: A Randomized Trial Jocelyne R. Benatar*, John Mortimer, Matthew Stretton, Ralph A. H. Stewart Green Lane Cardiovascular Service, Auckland City Hospital, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Abstract Objective: Information on the rights of subjects in clinical trials has become increasingly complex and difficult to understand. This study evaluates whether a simple booklet which is relevant to all research studies improves the understanding of rights needed for subjects to provide informed consent. Methods: 21 currently used informed consent forms (ICF) from international clinical trials were separated into information related to the specific research study, and general information on participants’ rights. A booklet designed to provide information on participants’ rights which used simple language was developed to replace this information in current ICF’s Readability of each component of ICF’s and the booklet was then assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score (FK). To further evaluate the booklet 282 hospital inpatients were randomised to one of three ways to present research information; a standard ICF, the booklet combined with a short ICF, or the booklet combined with a simplified ICF. Comprehension of information related to the research proposal and to participant’s rights was assessed by questionnaire. Results: Information related to participants’ rights contributed an average of 44% of the words in standard ICFs, and was harder to read than information describing the clinical trial (FK 25 versus (vs.) 41 respectively, p = 0.0003). The booklet reduced the number of words and improved FK from 25 to 42. The simplified ICF had a slightly high

您可能关注的文档

文档评论(0)

qianqiana + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

版权声明书
用户编号:5132241303000003

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档