It is both an ethical and a legal requirement that patients who participate in clinical trials must generally give their consent. As part of this process, patients must be provided with adequate information to enable them to decide whether or not to take part. In the UK, the pharmaceutical companies that sponsor such research, as well as Local Research Ethics Committees, specify in detail the information that must be given to trial participants. The researchers who conduct clinical trials inevitably form (...) views on the amount of information they are required to provide, and about patients’ comprehension of that information. The literature in this area suggests that some medical researchers may be unhappy with the amount of information that they must give patient participants. There have been, however, few systematic attempts to determine their views. This paper reports a study that explored researchers’ views as to (i) the amount of information provided to trial participants, and (ii) participants’ understanding of that information. Researchers generally felt that they were required to give trial participants an appropriate amount of information, and that most patients had at least a reasonable understanding of key aspects of the clinical trials’ process. However, there were differing views as to the level of information that they felt patients themselves wanted. The researchers did not generally feel that the patients’ inability to comprehend information rendered the process of obtaining ‘informed consent’ a waste of time. However, some did believe that they were required to burden patients with excessive information. (shrink)

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain attitudes to different methods of obtaining informed consent for randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Structured interviews with members of the public, medical secretaries and medical students. SETTING: The public were approached in a variety of public places. Medical secretaries and students were approached in their place of work. SUBJECTS: Fifty members of the public, 25 secretaries and 25 students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Views on RCTs were elicited, with particular emphasis on how subjects thought the concept of randomisation (...) should be explained. Each participant was presented with descriptions of proposed clinical trials and asked to select his or her preference from a range of options. RESULTS: Written information was preferred over verbal information in 91% of replies. Most respondents (86%) would prefer to sign a consent form. Of the seven statements explaining randomisation, a significant difference was found in favour of explanations that were less explicit about the play of chance (ANOVA; p = 0.0004). Eighty-three per cent of participants thought that randomised trials were morally acceptable when there was no prior medical preference between treatments. However, over half (55%) thought they would find it upsetting to be offered entry in such a trial and a quarter thought the outcome of treatment might be adversely affected. CONCLUSIONS: Our results offer some support for the idea that "economy with truth" is less unsettling than a frank description of the stark reality of what randomisation means. It is a matter of debate as to whether, if we are correct, autonomy should have precedence over beneficence. The offer of entry in a clinical trial is likely to affect the experience of care for many people, especially if the process of randomisation is described explicitly. Potential participants should be given a detailed written explanation of the rationale for the trial and be asked to sign a consent form if they agree to take part. (shrink)

Objective: To examine lay persons’ ability to identify methods of random allocation and their acceptability of using methods of random allocation in a clinical trial context.Design: Leaflets containing hypothetical medical, non-medical, and clinical trial scenarios involving random allocation, using material from guidelines for trial information leaflets.Setting and participants: Adults attending further education colleges , covering a wide range of ages, occupations, and levels of education.Main measures: Judgements of whether each of five methods of allocation to two groups was random in (...) a medical or non-medical scenario. Judgements of whether these allocation methods were acceptable in a randomised clinical trial scenario, with or without a scientific justification for randomisation.Results: The majority of our group of participants judged correctly that allowing people their preference was not random, and that the following were random: using a computer with no information about the individual , tossing a coin, drawing a name out of a hat. Judgements were split over allocating people in turn . Judgements were no different in medical and non-medical scenarios. Few of the correctly identified random methods were judged to be acceptable in a clinical trial scenario. Inclusion of a scientific justification for randomising significantly increased the acceptability of only one random method: allocation by computer.Conclusions: Current UK guidelines’ recommended description of random allocation by computer seems warranted. However, while potential trial participants may understand what random allocation means, they may find it unacceptable unless offered an acceptable justification for its use. (shrink)