Variability and inadequacies in the contents of informed consent documents (ICDs) affect the quality of the informed consent (IC) process. This study assessed the content and readability of the 241 ICDs approved for biomedical research in South-East Nigeria from 2019 to 2021. The presence of basic elements for IC in the revised Common Rule and National Code was assessed, and the Flesh readability scores measured. Only 2 (0.8%) of the ICDs had all basic elements required by the Common Rule. Most ICDs fall below recommended readability indices. To improve the quality of the IC process, HRECs are to ensure that, while upholding research validity and credibility, ICDs are easy-to-read yet contain the basic information needed for decision-making by participants.
BeauchampT. L.ChildressJ. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
2.
BothunL. S.FeederS. E.PolandG. A. (2021). Readability of participant informed consent forms and informational documents: From phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials in the United States. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 96(8), 2095–2101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.05.025
DeRenzoE. G.MossJ. (2021). Writing clinical research protocols. ethical considerations. In Angewandte chemie international edition (Vol. 6, pp. 951–952). Elsevier Academic Press.
5.
EzeomeE.EzeomeI.ChukeP. (2011). Contents and readability of currently used surgical/procedure informed consent forms in Nigerian tertiary health institutions. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 14(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.86775
6.
FadareJ. O.PorteriC. (2010). Informed consent in human subject research: A comparison of current international and Nigerian guidelines. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.67
7.
FischerA. E.VenterW. D. F.CollinsS.CarmanM.Lalla-EdwardS. T. (2021). The readability of informed consent forms for research studies conducted in South Africa. South African Medical Journal, 111(2), 180. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.14752
GrossmanS. A.PiantadosiS.CovaheyC. (1994). Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12(10), 2211–2215. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1994.12.10.2211
10.
HaddenK. B.PrinceL. Y.MooreT. D.JamesL. P.HollandJ. R.TrudeauC. R. (2017). Improving readability of informed consents for research at an academic medical institution. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(6), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2017.312
HochhauserM. (2000). The informed consent form: Document development and evaluation. Drug Information Journal, 34(4), 1309–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150003400438
13.
JindalP.MacdermidJ. C. (2017). Assessing Reading levels of health information: Uses and limitations of flesch formula. Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice, 30(1), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210517
14.
KassN. E.ChaissonL.TaylorH. A.LohseJ. (2011). Length and complexity of US and international HIV consent forms from federal HIV network trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(11), 1324–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1778-6
15.
KoonrungsesomboonN.LaothavornJ.KarbwangJ. (2015). Understanding of essential elements required in informed consent form among researchers and institutional review board members. Tropical Medicine and Health, 43(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.2149/tmh.2014-36
16.
LarsonE.FoeG.LallyR. (2015). Reading level and length of written research consent forms. Clinical and Translational Science, 8(4), 355–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12253
17.
MaticI.De NardiG.SteinerF. (2021). Analysing and optimising informed consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers. AILA Review, 34(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20007.mat
18.
MinniesD.HawkridgeT.HanekomW.EhrlichR.LondonL.HusseyG. (2008). Evaluation of the quality of informed consent in a vaccine field trial in a developing country setting. BMC Medical Ethics, 9(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-9-15
19.
MusmadeP.NijhawanL.UdupaN.BairyK.BhatK.JanodiaM.MuddukrishnaB. (2013). Informed consent: Issues and challenges. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, 4(3), 134. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-4040.116779
20.
National Bureau of Statistics. 2017 Demographic Statistics Bulletin. (2018, May).
21.
National Code of Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC). Federal Ministry of Health, Department of Health Planning and Research. (2007).
National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria] and International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). (2019). Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2018. NPC and ICF.
24.
OgunrinF. O.A OgunrinO. (2016). Knowledge and practice of research ethics among biomedical researchers in southern Nigerian tertiary institutions. Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics, 7(3), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9627.1000274
25.
Online PDF Converter - Edit, rotate and compress PDF files. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://www.pdf2go.com/.
26.
OPERATIONS MANUAL University of Michigan Human Research Protection Program HRPP OM Revision Table. (2023).
27.
ParisA.DeygasB.CornuC.ThalamasC.MaisonP.DualeC.KaneM.HodajE.CracowskiJ. L. (2015). Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients’ understanding but reduce enrolment: A study in real settings. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 80(5), 1010–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12716
28.
ReinertC.KremmlerL.BurockS.BogdahnU.WickW.GleiterC. H.KollerM.HauP. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trial. European Journal of Cancer, 50(1), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.00
29.
RemlerD. K.Van RyzinG. G. (2015). Research Methods in practice: Strategies for description and causation (2nd ed.). Sage.
SilaigwanaBWassenaarD. (2015). Biomedical research ethics committees in sub-Saharan Africa: A collective review of their structure, functioning, and outcomes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615575511
The Belmont Report. (1978). Ethical principles and Guidelines for the protection of Human Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and behavioural Research. Bethesda, Maryland United States.
34.
WenG.LiuX.HuangL.ShuJ.XuN.ChenR.HuangZ.YangG.WangX.XiangY.LuY.YuanH. (2016). Readability and content assessment of informed consent forms for phase II-IV clinical trials in China. PLOS ONE, 11(10), e0164251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164251
35.
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. (2024). Ethical principles for medical research involving human participants. Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 and amended by the 5th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, October 2024.https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
36.
YakubuA. A.HyderA. A.AliJ.KassN. (2017). Research Ethics Committees in Nigeria: A Survey of Operations, Functions, and Needs. IRB Ethics and Human Research, 39(3), 11–19. https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/sphhs_global_facpubs/779
