Communicating in lay language is an underdeveloped skill among many researchers—a limitation that contributes to low readability among research consent forms and may hinder participant understanding of study procedures and risks. We present the Project to Review and Improve Study Materials (PRISM) and its centerpiece, the PRISM Readability Toolkit. The toolkit provides strategies for creating study materials that are readable and participant centered, focusing on consent forms but also addressing other participant materials. Based on plain language principles, this free resource includes a flexible menu of tools, such as an editing checklist, before and after examples, easy-to-read template language, and a list of alternative words. Among PRISM's ongoing goals is to test the toolkit with populations groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs. Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA.1995;281:552–557.
2.
WeissBD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians.Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association Foundation; 2003.
3.
BerkmanNDDeWaltDAPignoneMP. Literacy and Health Outcomes: Summary Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 87.Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2004. AHRQ Publication No. 04-E007-1.
4.
Nielsen-BohlmanLPanzerAKindigD, eds. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
5.
KutnerMGreenbergEJinYPaulsenC. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006.
6.
The Health Literacy and Patient Safety Roundtable. “What Did the Doctor Say?:” Improving Health Literacy to Protect Patient Safety.Oakbrook Terrace, Ill: The Joint Commission; 2007.
7.
VernonJATrujilloARosenbaumSDeBuonoB. Low Health Literacy: Implications for National Health Policy.Storrs, Conn: University of Connecticut; 2007.
8.
KirschIJungeblutAJenkinsLKolstadA. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey.3rd ed.Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 2002.
9.
RuddREMoeykensBAColtonTC. Health and literacy: a review of medical and public health literature. In: ComingsJGarnersBSmithC, eds. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy.Vol 1. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 2000.
10.
Protection of Human Subjects. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, §§46.109 and 50.20 (1993).
11.
DavisTCHolcombeRFBerkelHJ. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst.1998;90:668–674.
12.
MorrowGR. How readable are subject consent forms?JAMA.1980;244:56–58.
13.
TaubHA. Comprehension of informed consent for research: issues and directions for future study. IRB.1986;8:7–10.
14.
LoVerdaMEProchazkaAVByynyRL. Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Intern Med.1989;4:410–412.
TarnowskiKJAllenDMMayhallCKellyPA. Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics.1990;85:58–63.
17.
HammerschmidtDEKeaneMA. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci.1992;304:348–351.
18.
HopperKDTenHaveTRHartzelJ. Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do patients understand?Am J Roentgenol.1995;164:493–496.
19.
Paasche-OrlowMKTaylorHABrancatiFL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med.2003;348:721–726.
20.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Plain Language: A Promising Strategy for Clearly Communicating Health Information and Improving Health Literacy. Available at: http://www.health.gov/communication/literacy/plainlanguage/IssueBrief.pdf. Accessed March 6, 2008.
21.
StablefordSMettgerW. Plain language: a strategic response to the health literacy challenge. J Public Health Policy.2007;28: 71–93.
WendlerD. Can we ensure that all research subjects give valid consent?Arch Intern Med.2004;164:2201–2204.
25.
CoxK. Informed consent and decision-making: patients' experiences of the process of recruitment to phases I and II anti-cancer drug trials. Patient Educ Couns.2002;46:31–38.
26.
CoyneCRonghuiXRaichP. 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;21:836–842.
27.
BjornERosselPHolmS. Can the written information to research subjects be improved?—an empirical study. J Med Ethics.1999;25:263–267.
28.
MaslinA. A survey of the opinions on “informed consent” of women currently involved in clinical trials within a breast unit. Eur J Cancer Care.1994;3:153–162.
29.
BrockDWWartmanS. When competent patients make irrational choices. New Engl J Med.1990;322:1595–1599.
