Skip to content

Clinical Informed Consent Format Evaluation

Clinical Informed Consent Format Evaluation

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02489682
Enrollment
76
Registered
2015-07-03
Start date
2014-12-31
Completion date
2015-05-31
Last updated
2024-02-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Consent Forms

Brief summary

This study evaluates the effectiveness of a patient-centered short written informed consent form and a patient-centered short video informed consent in a randomized controlled trial (control = traditional informed consent ). Primary outcome measures include critical knowledge acquisition, risk and benefit judgments, and desired enrollment in a hypothetical clinical trial. The investigators hypothesized that the patient-centered patient-designed consent forms (video and written format) would do as well as or outperform the traditional consent form on the primary outcomes.

Detailed description

Traditional informed consent documents tend to be lengthy and technical, often too dense to facilitate proper patient-engagement. In this study, the investigators test the effectiveness of a previously developed patient-centered, short informed consent document and a patient-centered, short informed animated consent video as compared to a lengthy traditional informed consent document for the same clinical condition (i.e. severe asthma) In this study, self-identified asthma patients, aged 18 or older, attending an experimental session in a university computer laboratory will be randomly assigned to read either the full informed consent document (control) or the short, patient-centered informed consent document or to view the short patient-centered informed consent video. Participants will also complete a follow-up survey at 1-week. The main outcome measures are: Engagement in the information (1=not at all engaged, 2=not very engaged, 3= somewhat engaged, 4=very engaged, 5=completely engaged). Intention to enroll in the clinical trial (1=definitely would not, 3=neutral, and 5=definitely would) Trial knowledge (12 multiple choice questions, e.g. When can \[the participants\] withdraw from the trial?) Trust in the clinical trial physician (Six questions beginning with, If \[the participant\] decided to enroll in this study, how much would \[the participant\] trust Dr. Janet Taylor, the physician who is leading the study, to...) Perceived risks and benefits of the trial (Four questions, e.g. Imagine that \[the participant\] enrolled in the clinical trial, how likely do \[the participants\] think it is that the drug would be more effective in treating \[the participant's\] asthma symptoms than an average asthma drug on the market?) The investigators hypothesize that the two experimental conditions will outperform the control condition on engagement and trial knowledge and would do as well as the control on the remaining outcome measures.

Interventions

OTHERLong-form written Informed consent information
OTHERShort-form written Informed consent information
OTHERVideo Informed consent information

Sponsors

ICON plc
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Carnegie Mellon University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* at least 18 years of age * fluent in English * self-identifying as asthma patients

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Perceived Risk and Benefit as assessed by a series of judgment questionsimmediately after intervention
Hypothetical trial enrollment as assessed by a likelihood of enrollment questionimmediately after intervention
Engagement as assessed by a likert scale engagement questionimmediately after intervention
Trust in physician as assessed by a composite of likert scale questions measuring trustimmediately after intervention
Trial Knowledge as assessed by a composite of 12 true/false questionsimmediately after intervention

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Change in trust in physician as assessed by a composite of likert scale questions measuring trust at 1 week from intervention1-week follow-up
Change in hypothetical trial trial knowledge as assessed by a composite of 12 true/false questions at 1 week from intervention1-week follow-up
Change in Perceived Risk and Benefit as assessed by a series of judgment questions at 1 week from intervention1-week follow-up
Change in hypothetical trial enrollment as assessed by a likelihood of enrollment question at 1 week from intervention1-week follow-up

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026