Peter Knapp*, Peter Bower, Jenny Roche, Caroline Fairhurst, Lola Awoyale and Tracy Moitt
Background: Consent form completion errors may invalidate consent and waste participant and research time. The aim of this study was to compare error rates in an existing trial consent form with a revised version, developed through information design and user testing
Method: Study within a trial (SWAT) conducted within the ISDR trial of diabetic screening intervals. Using a sequential groups design, participants completed either the original trial consent form or a version that had been revised through iterative user testing and information design principles.
Results: Forms for 1,027 participants were analyzed: 307 revised forms and 720 original forms. Major error rates were low and similar in the two groups (1.0% in original forms; 0.6% in revised forms; p=0.61). Minor error rates were lower in revised forms (11.0% in original forms; 5.9% in revised forms; p=0.006), as were rates of any error (11.8% in original forms; 5.9% in revised forms; p=0.004).
Conclusion: Revising the consent form through user testing and graphic design resulted in a halving of error rates, although the effect requires further evaluation in a SWAT with random allocation.
HTML PDFShare this article
Journal of Clinical Research received 11 citations as per Google Scholar report
