Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education 6/2021

01-12-2021

Understanding Verbosity: Funding Source and the Length of Consent Forms for Cancer Clinical Trials

Authors: Quyen Duong, Sumithra J. Mandrekar, Stacey J. Winham, Kathryn Cook, Aminah Jatoi, Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 6/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Consent forms are an important educational tool that helps cancer patients decide on whether or not to enroll on a clinical trial, but wordiness potentially detracts from their educational value. This single-institution study examined word counts of consent forms for all phase I, II, and III solid tumor clinical trials between 2004 and 2010. Consent forms were categorized by trial funding source: (1) pharmaceutical company; (2) National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN); (3) R01- or other non-government grants; and (4) mixed (funding from multiple sources). Three hundred fifteen consent forms were studied; these included 106 (34%) pharmaceutical company; 145 (46%) NCTN; 44 (14%) R01 type; and 20 (6%) mixed. The overall median word count was 5129 words per consent form (interquartile range (IQR) range, 4226 to 6695). The median word counts per consent form (IQR) were 5648 (4814, 6803), 5243 (4139, 6932), 4365 (3806, 5124), and 4319 (3862, 5944), respectively, based on the above funding sources, showing that pharmaceutical company trial consent forms had the highest median word count. Of note, phase of trial was associated with consent form length (phase III were wordier), and consent forms manifested a consistent increase in wordiness over time. These observations underscore a timely need to find ways to limit the verbosity of consent forms, particularly in those from pharmaceutical company trials.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hochhauser M. Consent forms in context: how long is long? In: SOCRA. Last accessed November 23, 2019 Hochhauser M. Consent forms in context: how long is long? In: SOCRA. Last accessed November 23, 2019
2.
go back to reference Barron D. The new era of informed consent in: eye for pharma. Last accessed January 20, 2020 Barron D. The new era of informed consent in: eye for pharma. Last accessed January 20, 2020
3.
go back to reference FDA Drug Approvals Jump In 2004 In: Relias Media. Last accessed December 13, 2019 FDA Drug Approvals Jump In 2004 In: Relias Media. Last accessed December 13, 2019
4.
go back to reference de le Mora-Molina H, Barajas-Ochoa A, Sandoval-Garcia L, Navarrete-Lorenzon M, Castaneda-Barragan EA, Castillo-Ortiz JD, Aceves-Avila FJ, Yanez J, Bustamante-Montes LP, Ramos-Remus C (2018) Trends of informed consent forms for industry-sponsored clinical trials in rheumatology over a 17-year period: readability and assessment of patients’ health literacy and perceptions. Semin Arthritis Rheum 48:547–552CrossRef de le Mora-Molina H, Barajas-Ochoa A, Sandoval-Garcia L, Navarrete-Lorenzon M, Castaneda-Barragan EA, Castillo-Ortiz JD, Aceves-Avila FJ, Yanez J, Bustamante-Montes LP, Ramos-Remus C (2018) Trends of informed consent forms for industry-sponsored clinical trials in rheumatology over a 17-year period: readability and assessment of patients’ health literacy and perceptions. Semin Arthritis Rheum 48:547–552CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Douglas CE, Michael FA (1991) On distribution-free multiple comparisons in the one-way analysis of variance. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods 20:127–139CrossRef Douglas CE, Michael FA (1991) On distribution-free multiple comparisons in the one-way analysis of variance. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods 20:127–139CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Jonckheere AR (1954) A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika 41:133–145CrossRef Jonckheere AR (1954) A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika 41:133–145CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60CrossRef Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Schumacher A, Sikov WM, Quesenberry M, Safran H, Khurshid H, Mitchell KM, Olszewski AJ (2017) Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: a Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study. PLoS One 12:e0172957CrossRef Schumacher A, Sikov WM, Quesenberry M, Safran H, Khurshid H, Mitchell KM, Olszewski AJ (2017) Informed consent in oncology clinical trials: a Brown University Oncology Research Group prospective cross-sectional pilot study. PLoS One 12:e0172957CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Mcspadden K (2015) You now have a shorter attention span than a goldfish in: TIME. Accessed 13 December 2019 Mcspadden K (2015) You now have a shorter attention span than a goldfish in: TIME. Accessed 13 December 2019
10.
go back to reference Hlubocky FJ, Sachs GA, Larson ER, Nimeiri HS, Cella D, Wroblewski KE, Ratain MJ, Peppercorn JM, Daugherty CK (2018) Do patients with advanced cancer have the ability to make informed decisions for participation in phase I clinical trials? J Clin Oncol 36:2483–2491CrossRef Hlubocky FJ, Sachs GA, Larson ER, Nimeiri HS, Cella D, Wroblewski KE, Ratain MJ, Peppercorn JM, Daugherty CK (2018) Do patients with advanced cancer have the ability to make informed decisions for participation in phase I clinical trials? J Clin Oncol 36:2483–2491CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Schroen TA, Petronic RG, Wang H (2010) Preliminary evaluation of factors associated with premature trial closure and feasibility of accrual benchmarks in phase 3 oncology trials. Clinical Trials 7:312–321CrossRef Schroen TA, Petronic RG, Wang H (2010) Preliminary evaluation of factors associated with premature trial closure and feasibility of accrual benchmarks in phase 3 oncology trials. Clinical Trials 7:312–321CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hlubocky FJ, Kass NE, Roter D, Larson S, Wroblewski KE, Sugarman J, Daugherty CK (2018) Investigator disclosure and advanced cancer patient understanding of informed consent and prognosis in phase I clinical trials. J Oncol Pract 14:e357–e367CrossRef Hlubocky FJ, Kass NE, Roter D, Larson S, Wroblewski KE, Sugarman J, Daugherty CK (2018) Investigator disclosure and advanced cancer patient understanding of informed consent and prognosis in phase I clinical trials. J Oncol Pract 14:e357–e367CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Garrett SB, Koenig CJ, Trupin L, Hlubocky FJ, Daugherty CK, Reinert A, Munster P, Dohan D (2017) What advanced cancer patients with limited treatment options know about clinical research: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer 25:3235–3242CrossRef Garrett SB, Koenig CJ, Trupin L, Hlubocky FJ, Daugherty CK, Reinert A, Munster P, Dohan D (2017) What advanced cancer patients with limited treatment options know about clinical research: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer 25:3235–3242CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding Verbosity: Funding Source and the Length of Consent Forms for Cancer Clinical Trials
Authors
Quyen Duong
Sumithra J. Mandrekar
Stacey J. Winham
Kathryn Cook
Aminah Jatoi
Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01757-7

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Journal of Cancer Education 6/2021 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine