Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facilitating Informed Permission/Assent/Consent in Pediatric Clinical Trials

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individuals approached to participate in human subjects research, irrespective of age, must be completely apprised of the study, and researchers must ensure that the information is understood to the fullest extent possible, prior to decision making. However, evolving regulatory and institutional requirements have led to permission/assent/consent (PAC) forms that are unnecessarily complex, serving only to exacerbate the challenges associated with communicating this important information to prospective participants. At greatest risk are children and other individuals with low literacy, limited English proficiency, and diminished mental capacity, populations all too often neglected in clinical research. This paper examines various strategies that have been evaluated to facilitate informed PAC, drawing on experiences across a broad array of populations whose needs overlap with those of children. These strategies range from simplifying PAC forms for readability and creating multimedia PAC delivery tools to actively engaging participants on their understanding of PAC elements by leveraging testing, rewards, and third-party communications. Notably, the findings from strategies that have been explored in more than one setting are uniformly mixed with respect to their ability to improve comprehension, underscoring the challenges that persist in designing, implementing, and objectively examining strategies intended to facilitate informed PAC. However, these studies do serve to highlight efforts that may reduce anxiety around, and increase the satisfaction of participants with, the PAC process. Ultimately, accommodating a diverse participant pool will require the consideration, and continual refinement, of various PAC strategies along with the engagement of team members who are intimately familiar with these populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, MD: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1978.

  2. Code of Federal Regulations. Protection of human subjects—elements of informed consent, 21 C.F.R. pt. 50.25; 2011.

  3. Epstein LC, Lasagna L. Obtaining informed consent. Form or substance. Arch Intern Med. 1969;123:682–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. LoVerde ME, Prochazka AV, Byyny RL. Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:410–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lavelle-Jones C, Byrne DJ, Rice P, Cuschieri A. Factors affecting quality of informed consent. BMJ. 1993;306:885–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Grossman SA, Piantadosi S, Covahey C. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:2211–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. White LJ, Jones JS, Felton CW, Pool LC. Informed consent for medical research: common discrepancies and readability. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:745–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:235–41.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Beardsley E, Jefford M, Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening? J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:e13–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boulton M, Parker M. Informed consent in a changing environment. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:2187–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Padhy BM, Gupta P, Gupta YK. Analysis of the compliance of informed consent documents with good clinical practice guideline. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:662–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powel D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent. An annotated bibliography. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29:S1–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Raich PC, Plomer KD, Coyne CA. Literacy, comprehension, and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Investig. 2001;19:437–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358:1772–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593–601.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergenmar M, Molin C, Wilking N, Brandberg Y. Knowledge and understanding among cancer patients consenting to participate in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2627–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenkins VA, Anderson JL, Fallowfield LJ. Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature from January 2005 to July 2009. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:1115–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cortés DE, Drainoni ML, Henault LE, Paasche-Orlow MK. How to achieve informed consent for research from Spanish-speaking individuals with low literacy: a qualitative report. J Health Commun. 2010;15(Suppl 2):172–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jefford M, Mileshkin L, Matthews J, et al. Satisfaction with the decision to participate in cancer clinical trials is high, but understanding is a problem. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19:371–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ittenbach RF, Senft EC, Huang G, Corsmo JJ, Sieber JE. Readability and understanding of informed consent among participants with low incomes: a preliminary report. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015;10:444–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Eisenhauer ER, Tait AR, Rieh SY, Arslanian-Engoren CM. Participants’ understanding of informed consent for biobanking: a systematic review. Clin Nurs Res. 2019;28:30–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lang T, Siribaddana S. Clinical trials have gone global: is this a good thing? PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001228.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Davis S, Wright PW, Schulman SF, et al. Participants in prospective, randomized clinical trials for resected non-small cell lung cancer have improved survival compared with nonparticipants in such trials. Cancer. 1985;56:1710–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heiat A, Gross C, Krumholz H. Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. Arch Int Med. 2002;162:1682–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Ioannidis JPA, Mandl KD. Clinical drug trials: a paucity of pediatric representation mismatched to global disease burden [abs]. PAS meeting, Boston, MA; 2012.

  26. Lang TA, White NJ, Tran HT, et al. Clinical research in resource-limited settings: enhancing research capacity and working together to make trials less complicated. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4:e619.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Hussain-Gambles M, Atkin K, Leese B. Why ethnic minority groups are under-represented in clinical trials: a review of the literature. Health Soc Care Community. 2004;12:382–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tolbert J, Golman J, Kauffmann R, Abdel-Rahman SM. The creating hope act: what is old is new again. Pediatr Health Med Ther. 2014;5:49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shakhnovich V, Hornik CP, Kearns GL, Weigel J, Abdel-Rahman SM. How to conduct clinical trials in children: a tutorial. Clin Transl Sci. 2019;12:218–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Minutes from the DHHS, NIH, NCI 14th clinical trials and translational research advisory committee meeting July 13, 2011. https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ctac/archive/0711/13jul11mins.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  31. National Research Council. Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2002. p. 123–7.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Association of American Medical Colleges AAMC Reporter. [April 1, 2010]; Informed consent documents group: keep it simple. 2007. http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/oct07/informedconsent.htm. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  33. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations—title 45 public welfare CFR 46. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  34. Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:485–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:2211–33.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Glinsky A. How valid is the Flesch readability formula? Am Psychol. 1948;3:261.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram SG, Nightingale C, Philipson EH. Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med. 1995;43:459–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Breese P, Burman W, Rietmeijer C, Lezotte D. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the informed consent process. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:897–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol. 2004;27:570–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Samadi A, Asghari F. Readability of informed consent forms in clinical trials conducted in a skin research center. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2016;9:7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Philipson S, Doyle M, Nightingale C, Bow L, Mather J, Philipson E. Effectiveness of a writing improvement intervention program on the readability of the research informed consent document. J Investig Med. 1999;47:468–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:721–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Taub HA. Informed consent, memory and age. Gerontologist. 1980;20:686–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Taub HA, Baker MT, Sturr JF. Informed consent for research: effects of readability, patient age, and education. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34:601–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Taub HA, Baker MT, Kline GE, Sturr JF. Comprehension of informed consent information by young-old through old-old volunteers. Exp Aging Res. 1987;13:173–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, Pramanik S, Divers SG. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:668–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved: an empirical study. J Med Ethics. 1999;25:263–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Stiles PG, Poythress NG, Hall A, Falkenbach D, Williams R. Improving understanding of research consent disclosures among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:780–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Coyne CA, Xu R, Raich P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:836–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Agre P, Rapkin B. Improving informed consent: a comparison of four consent tools. IRB. 2003;25:1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kang EY, Fields HW, Kiyak A, Beck FM, Firestone AR. Informed consent recall and comprehension in orthodontics: traditional versus improved readability and processability methods. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136(488):e1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Paris A, Brandt C, Cornu C, Maison P, Thalamas C, Cracowski JL. Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients’ comprehension in biomedical research. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69:231–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Murray PD, Bierer BE, Hirschfeld S, Klein AK, Davis JM. Assessment of a shortened informed consent form for pediatric research: a pilot study. Pediatr Res. 2018;84:516–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Perrault EK, Keating DM. Seeking ways to inform the uninformed: improving the informed consent process in online social science research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018;13:50–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Garrett SB, Murphy M, Wiley J, Dohan D. Standard versus simplified consent materials for biobank participation: differences in patient knowledge and trial accrual. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017;12:326–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE. Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB. 1990;12:1–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Murphy DA, O’Keefe ZH, Kaufman AH. Improving comprehension and recall of information for an HIV vaccine trial among women at risk for HIV: reading level simplification and inclusion of pictures to illustrate key concepts. AIDS Educ Prev. 1999;11:389–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dresden GM, Levitt MA. Modifying a standard industry clinical trial consent form improves patient information retention as part of the informed consent process. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8:246–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tait A, Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S, Philipson S. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effect on parents’ understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:347–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Benatar JR, Mortimer J, Stretton M, Stewart RA. A booklet on participants’ rights to improve consent for clinical research: a randomized trial. PLoS One. 2012;7:e47023.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Perrault EK, Nazione SA. Informed consent–uninformed participants: shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11:274–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sudore RL, Landefeld CS, Williams BA, Barnes DE, Lindquist K, Schillinger D. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive study. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:867–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Marco CA. Impact of detailed informed consent on research subjects’ participation: a prospective, randomized trial. J Emerg Med. 2008;34:269–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Koyfman SA, Reddy CA, Hizlan S, Leek AC, Kodish AE, Phase I Informed Consent (POIC) Research Team. Informed consent conversations and documents: a quantitative comparison. Cancer. 2016;122:464–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Larson EL, Teller A, Aguirre AN, Jackson J, Meyer D. Assessing usefulness and researcher satisfaction with consent form templates. J Clin Transl Sci. 2017;1:256–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Rudd RE, Comings JP. Learner developed materials: an empowering product. Health Educ Q. 1994;21:313–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Reid JC, Klachko DM, Kardash CA, Robinson RD, Scholes R, Howard D. Why people don’t learn from diabetes literature: influence of text and reader characteristics. Patient Educ Couns. 1995;25:31–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Turner S, Maher EJ, Young T, Young J, Vaughan Hudson G. What are the information priorities for cancer patients involved in treatment decisions? An experienced surrogate study in Hodgkin’s disease. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:222–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Beskow LM, Friedman JY, Hardy NC, Lin L, Weinfurt KP. Simplifying informed consent for biorepositories: stakeholder perspectives. Genet Med. 2010;12:567–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Abdel-Rahman SM. Evaluating the effectiveness of an illustrated permission/assent form. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015;17:1504–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Denzen EM, Santibáñez ME, Moore H, et al. Easy-to-read informed consent forms for hematopoietic cell transplantation clinical trials. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:183–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Sadoski M, Paivio A. A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In: Ruddell RB, Unrau NJ, editors. Theoretical models and processes of reading. 5th ed. Newark: International Reading Association; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Mayer RE, editor. Chapter 3, Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

  74. Food and Drug Administration. Use of an electronic informed consent in clinical investigations: questions and answers: guidance for institutional review boards, investigators, and sponsors (FR Doc. 2016-30146 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am). 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm436811.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  75. Agre P, Campbell FA, Goldman BD, et al. Improving informed consent: the medium is not the message. IRB. 2003;25:S11–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. O’Lonergan TA, Forster-Harwood JE. Novel approach to parental permission and child assent for research: improving comprehension. Pediatrics. 2011;127:917–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Simon CM, Klein DW, Schartz HA. Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: a randomized trial. Genet Med. 2016;18:57–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Kraft SA, Constantine M, Magnus D, et al. A randomized study of multimedia informational aids for research on medical practices: implications for informed consent. Clin Trials. 2017;14:94–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Llewellyn-Thomas H, Thiel EC, Sem FW, Woermke DE. Presenting clinical trial information: a comparison of methods. Patient Educ Couns. 1995;25:97–107.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Kass NE, Sugarman J, Medley AM, et al. An intervention to improve cancer patients’ understanding of early-phase clinical trials. IRB. 2009;31:1–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Rowbotham MC, Astin J, Greene K, Cummings SR. Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS One. 2013;8:e58603.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Rothwell E, Wong B, Rose NC, et al. A randomized controlled trial of an electronic informed consent process. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014;9:1–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Niccoli AM. The effects of reading mode on recall and comprehension. NERA conference Proceedings 2014, vol 2. 2015. http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2014/2. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  84. Miller CK, O’Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16:872–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Simon CM, Schartz HA, Rosenthal GE, Eisenstein EL, Klein DW. Perspectives on electronic informed consent from patients underrepresented in research in the United States: a focus group study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018;13:338–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Mahnke AN, Plasek JM, Hoffman DG, et al. A rural community’s involvement in the design and usability testing of a computer-based informed consent process for the personalized medicine research project. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164:129–40.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Simon CM, Klein DW, Schartz HA. Traditional and electronic informed consent for biobanking: a survey of U.S. biobanks. Biopreservation Biobanking. 2014;12:423–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Antal H, Bunnell HT, McCahan SM, Pennington C, Wysocki T, Blake KV. A cognitive approach for design of a multimedia informed consent video and website in pediatric research. Biomed Inform. 2017;66:248–58.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Nusbaum L, Douglas B, Damus K, Paasche-Orlow M, Estrella-Luna N. Communicating risks and benefits in informed consent for research: a qualitative study. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617732017.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Volume I, report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Bethesda, MD; 2001.

  91. Festinger DS, Dugosh KL, Marlowe DB, Clements NT. Achieving new levels of recall in consent to research by combining remedial and motivational techniques. J Med Ethics. 2014;40:264–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. Research involving individuals with questionable capacity to consent: points to consider. 2009. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/questionablecapacity.htm. Accessed 20 May 2019.

  93. Institute of Medicine. Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.17226/10508.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  94. Taub HA, Baker MT. The effect of repeated testing upon comprehension of informed consent materials by elderly volunteers. Exp Aging Res. 1983;9:135–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. White CS, Mason AC, Feehan M, Templeton PA. Informed consent for percutaneous lung biopsy: comparison of two consent protocols based on patient recall after the procedure. Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1139–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Wadey V, Frank C. The effectiveness of patient verbalization on informed consent. Can J Surg. 1997;40:124–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Wirshing WC, Marder SR, Liberman RP, Mintz J. Informed consent: assessment of comprehension. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1508–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Carpenter WT Jr, Gold JM, Lahti AC, et al. Decisional capacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:533–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Festinger D, Dugosh K, Croft J, Arabia PL, Marlowe DB. Corrected feedback: a procedure to enhance recall of informed consent to research among substance abusing offenders. Ethics Behav. 2010;20:387–99.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Taub HA, Kline GE, Baker MT. The elderly and informed consent: effects of vocabulary level and corrected feedback. Exp Aging Res. 1981;7:137–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Kleinman I, Schachter D, Jeffries J, Goldhamer P. Effectiveness of two methods for informing schizophrenia patients about neuroleptic medication. Hosp Commun Psychiatry. 1993;44:1189–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Festinger D, Marlowe D, Croft J, Dugosh KL, Arabia PL, Benasutti KM. Monetary incentives improve recall of research consent information: it pays to remember. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009;17:99–104.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Muss HB, White DR, Michielutte R, et al. Written informed consent in patients with breast cancer. Cancer. 1979;43:1549–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Dodd MJ, Mood DW. Chemotherapy: helping patients to know the drugs they are receiving and their possible side effects. Cancer Nurs. 1981;4:311–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Aaronson NK, Visser-Pol E, Leenhouts GHMW, et al. Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:984–96.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Tindall B, Forde S, Ross MW, Goldstein D, Barker S, Cooper DA. Effects of two formats of informed consent on knowledge amongst persons with advanced HIV disease in a clinical trial of didanosine. Patient Educ Couns. 1994;24:261–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Sorrell JM. Effects of writing/speaking on comprehension of information for informed consent. West J Nurs Res. 1991;13:110–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Rogers CG, Tyson JE, Kennedy KA, Broyles RS, Hickman JF. Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk. J Pediatr. 1998;132:606–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Aguila E, Weidmer BA, Illingworth AR, Martinez H. Culturally competent informed-consent process to evaluate a social policy for older persons with low literacy: the Mexican case. Sage Open. 2016;6:10.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Mandava A, Pace C, Campbell B, Emanuel E, Grady C. The quality of informed consent: mapping the landscape. A review of empirical data from developing and developed countries. J Med Ethics. 2012;38:356–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Petersen I, Desmedt C, Harris A, Buffa F, Kollek R. Informed consent, biobank research, and locality: perceptions of breast cancer patients in three European countries. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014;9:48–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217. Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

  113. Brody JL, Annett RD, Scherer DG, Perryman ML, Cofrin KM. Comparisons of adolescent and parent willingness to participate in minimal and above-minimal risk pediatric asthma research protocols. J Adolesc Health. 2005;37:229–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Brody JL, Scherer DG, Annett RD, Pearson-Bish M. Voluntary assent in biomedical research with adolescents: a comparison of parent and adolescent views. Ethics Behav. 2003;13:79–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Innovation, Children’s Mercy, 2401 Gillham Rd., POB 2.M02.47, Kansas City, MO, 64108, USA

    Susan M. Abdel-Rahman

  2. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA

    Susan M. Abdel-Rahman

Authors
  1. Susan M. Abdel-Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Abdel-Rahman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

S M. Abdel-Rahman does not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

No funding was received to support the preparation of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdel-Rahman, S.M. Facilitating Informed Permission/Assent/Consent in Pediatric Clinical Trials. Pediatr Drugs 21, 205–214 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-019-00347-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40272-019-00347-5

Search

Navigation