Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference?
CONTEXT: Researchers and investigators have argued that getting fully informed written consent may not be possible in the developing countries where illiteracy is widespread. AIMS: To determine the percentage of patients who agree to participate in a trial after receiving either complete or partial...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2003-01-01
|
Series: | Journal of Postgraduate Medicine |
Online Access: | http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2003;volume=49;issue=2;spage=109;epage=13;aulast=Gitanjali |
id |
doaj-0cb95f43a64f42a492714462fe562f42 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-0cb95f43a64f42a492714462fe562f422020-11-24T23:10:28ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Postgraduate Medicine0022-38590972-28232003-01-0149210913Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference?Gitanjali BRaveendran RPandian DSujindra SCONTEXT: Researchers and investigators have argued that getting fully informed written consent may not be possible in the developing countries where illiteracy is widespread. AIMS: To determine the percentage of patients who agree to participate in a trial after receiving either complete or partial information regarding a trial and to find out whether there were gender or educational status-related differences. To assess reasons for consenting or refusing and their depth of understanding of informed consent. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A simulated clinical trial in two tertiary health care facilities on in-patients. METHODS AND MATERIAL: An informed consent form for a mock clinical trial of a drug was prepared. The detailed / partial procedure was explained to a purposive sample of selected in-patients and their consent was asked for. Patients were asked to free list the reasons for giving or withholding consent. Their depth of understanding was assessed using a questionnaire. Chi-square test was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The percentages of those consenting after full disclosure 29/102 (30%) and after partial disclosure 15/50 (30%) were the same. There was a significant (p=0.043) gender difference with a lesser percentage of females (30%) consenting to participation in a trial. Educational status did not alter this percentage. Most patients withheld consent because they did not want to give blood or take a new drug. Understanding of informed consent was poor in those who consented. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that only one-third of subjects are likely to give consent to participate in a trial needs to be considered while planning clinical trials with a large sample size. Gender but not educational status influences the number of subjects consenting for a study. Poor understanding of the elements of informed consent in patients necessitates evolving better methods of implementing consent procedures in India.http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2003;volume=49;issue=2;spage=109;epage=13;aulast=Gitanjali |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Gitanjali B Raveendran R Pandian D Sujindra S |
spellingShingle |
Gitanjali B Raveendran R Pandian D Sujindra S Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? Journal of Postgraduate Medicine |
author_facet |
Gitanjali B Raveendran R Pandian D Sujindra S |
author_sort |
Gitanjali B |
title |
Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? |
title_short |
Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? |
title_full |
Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? |
title_fullStr |
Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? |
title_sort |
recruitment of subjects for clinical trials after informed consent: does gender and educational status make a difference? |
publisher |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
series |
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine |
issn |
0022-3859 0972-2823 |
publishDate |
2003-01-01 |
description |
CONTEXT: Researchers and investigators have argued that getting fully informed written consent may not be possible in the developing countries where illiteracy is widespread. AIMS: To determine the percentage of patients who agree to participate in a trial after receiving either complete or partial information regarding a trial and to find out whether there were gender or educational status-related differences. To assess reasons for consenting or refusing and their depth of understanding of informed consent. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A simulated clinical trial in two tertiary health care facilities on in-patients. METHODS AND MATERIAL: An informed consent form for a mock clinical trial of a drug was prepared. The detailed / partial procedure was explained to a purposive sample of selected in-patients and their consent was asked for. Patients were asked to free list the reasons for giving or withholding consent. Their depth of understanding was assessed using a questionnaire. Chi-square test was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The percentages of those consenting after full disclosure 29/102 (30%) and after partial disclosure 15/50 (30%) were the same. There was a significant (p=0.043) gender difference with a lesser percentage of females (30%) consenting to participation in a trial. Educational status did not alter this percentage. Most patients withheld consent because they did not want to give blood or take a new drug. Understanding of informed consent was poor in those who consented. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that only one-third of subjects are likely to give consent to participate in a trial needs to be considered while planning clinical trials with a large sample size. Gender but not educational status influences the number of subjects consenting for a study. Poor understanding of the elements of informed consent in patients necessitates evolving better methods of implementing consent procedures in India. |
url |
http://www.jpgmonline.com/article.asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2003;volume=49;issue=2;spage=109;epage=13;aulast=Gitanjali |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT gitanjalib recruitmentofsubjectsforclinicaltrialsafterinformedconsentdoesgenderandeducationalstatusmakeadifference AT raveendranr recruitmentofsubjectsforclinicaltrialsafterinformedconsentdoesgenderandeducationalstatusmakeadifference AT pandiand recruitmentofsubjectsforclinicaltrialsafterinformedconsentdoesgenderandeducationalstatusmakeadifference AT sujindras recruitmentofsubjectsforclinicaltrialsafterinformedconsentdoesgenderandeducationalstatusmakeadifference |
_version_ |
1725607164042543104 |