EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Interactive Informed Consent: Randomized Comparison with Paper Consents

Michael C Rowbotham, John Astin, Kaitlin Greene and Steven R Cummings

PLOS ONE, 2013, vol. 8, issue 3, 1-6

Abstract: Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject’s own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct = 77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct = 57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct = 75% vs 58%, p

Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058603 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 58603&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0058603

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058603

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-22
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058603