ObjectivesThe first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.DesignRetrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.SettingPILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.InterventionNot applicable.Main outcome measuresPILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.ResultsA total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as ‘Plain English’, 40.3%: ‘Fairly Difficult’, 51.3%: ‘Difficult’ and 1.3%: ‘Very Difficult’. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.ConclusionsWhen assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundOur aim was to assess the heterogeneity of high-risk (HR) prostate cancer managed with high-dose external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).MethodsWe identified 547 patients who were treated with modern EBRT from 1997 to 2013, of whom 98% received ADT. We analyzed biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS).ResultsMedian EBRT dose was 74 Gy, and median ADT duration was 8 months. At 5 years, the DMFS was 85%. On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of shorter bRFS were biopsy Gleason score (bGS) of 8 to 10, higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, shorter duration of ADT and lower radiation dose while predictors of shorter DMFS were bGS of 8 to 10, higher PSA level, and lower radiation dose. We identified an unfavorable high-risk (UHR) group of with 2–3 HR factors based on 2015 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria and a favorable high-risk (FHR) group, with 1 HR feature. Comparing very-HR prostate cancer, UHR & FHR, 5 year bRFS rates were 58.2%, 66.2%, and 69.2%, and 5 year DMFS rates were 78.4%, 81.2%, and 88.0%.ConclusionPatients with multiple HR factors have worse outcome than patients with 1 HR factor. Future studies should account for this heterogeneity in HR prostate cancer.

Background The process of informed consent for enrolment to a clinical research study can be complex for both participants and research staff. Challenges include respecting the potential participant’s autonomy and information needs while simultaneously providing adequate information to enable an informed decision. Qualitative research with small sample sizes has added to our understanding of these challenges. However, there is value in garnering the perspectives of research participants and staff across larger samples to explore the impact of contextual factors (time spent, the timing of the discussion and the setting), on the informed consent process. Methods Research staff and research participants from Ireland and the UK were invited to complete an anonymous survey by post or online (research participants) and online (research staff). The surveys aimed to quantify the perceptions of research participants and staff regarding some contextual factors about the process of informed consent. The survey, which contained 14 and 16 multiple choice questions for research participants and staff respectively, was analysed using descriptive statistics. Both surveys included one optional, open-ended question, which were analysed thematically. Results Research participants (169) and research staff (115) completed the survey. Research participants were predominantly positive about the informed consent process but highlighted the importance of having sufficient time and the value of providing follow-up once the study concludes, e.g. providing results to participants. Most staff (74.4%) staff reported that they felt very confident or confident facilitating informed consent discussions, but 63% felt information leaflets were too long and/or complicated, 56% were concerned about whether participants had understood complex information and 40% felt that time constraints were a barrier. A dominant theme from the open-ended responses to the staff survey was the importance of adequate time and resources. Conclusions Research participants in this study were overwhelmingly positive about their experience of the informed consent process. However, research staff expressed concern about how much participants have understood and studies of patient comprehension of research study information would seem to confirm these fears. This study highlights the importance of allocating adequate time to informed consent discussions, and research staff could consider using Teach Back techniques. Trial Registration Not applicable

No abstract

Background In line with Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki, it is the investigator’s responsibility to ensure that research participants are sufficiently informed, to enable the provision of informed consent. The Participant Information Leaflet/Informed Consent Form is key to facilitating this communication process. Although studies have indicated that clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms are not optimal in terms of accessibility, there is little or no specific guidance available. The aim of this research was to propose and agree a set of guidelines for academic researchers and sponsors for preparing accessible and understandable Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms. Methods A literature review identified guidance for the preparation of patient-facing documents. Following critical appraisal, key recommendations were extracted and a set of recommendations which can be applied to clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms were prepared. These recommendations were evaluated and amended by an Expert Consensus Conference consisting of a group of key stakeholders. The stakeholders included members of a Research Ethics Committee (both lay and expert), a patient advocate, experienced clinical researchers, a plain English editor and a Data Protection Officer. Consensus was reached regarding a final set of recommendations. Results 44 recommendations were agreed upon and grouped into five categories: Layout, Formatting, Content, Language and Confirming Readability. These recommendations aimed to maximize accessibility for lay participants, including readers with dyslexia, literacy or numeracy challenges, thereby improving the quality of the consent process. Conclusions More empirical research is needed to further improve the informed consent process for research participants. However, these recommendations are informed by the current literature and have been ratified by expert stakeholders. It is hoped that these recommendations will help investigators and sponsors to consistently and efficiently produce more accessible clinical research Participant Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms.