Informed consent documents (ICDs) are integral to a research project and must provide all required information to the participant. We undertook a 6-year retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ICDs to assess the same. We accessed 300 ICDs from studies submitted to institutional ethics committee. Studies were selected using random proportional-to-size sampling across years and study types (thesis, pharma, government, investigator initiated [OA] studies). We used the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), estimated reading time (ERT) and scored ICDs out of 13 points on the basis of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-mandated headings (ICD Quality Score [IQS]). Information pertaining to the consent refusal rate (CRR) of each study was correlated with FRES, ERT, and other parameters. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Two hundred and ninety-three ICDs had complete information. Median FRES was 48.3 (interquartile range [IQR] = 7), median ERT was 4.5 min (IQR = 1.3), the median expected duration of participation was 35 min (IQR = 40); compensation was provided by 23 projects and median compensation was Rs. 2500 (IQR = Rs. 4750). Mean IQS improved from 11.95 to 12.60 in 6 years (Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.001). FRES was weakly negatively correlated to the CRR (r = -0.120, P = 0.039), while the expected duration of participation was weakly positively correlated (r = 0.144, P = 0.014). Pharma studies performed better and ICDs have improved in their readability and ICMR guidelines compliance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamath et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: