ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Readability of health research informed consent forms: case of the National Health Research Ethics Committee in Tanzania.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObtaining informed consent is the practice of respect for persons that gives the right to participants to make autonomous decisions about research participation. The difficult-to-read research informed consent forms (RICFs) hinder comprehension and can expose participants to harm. This study aims to assess the readability of health RICFs for studies approved by the National Health Research Ethics Committee (NatHREC) in Tanzania.
methodsWe used a retrospective cross-sectional study design. A total of 266 RICFs were sampled from the NatHREC database using stratified and systematic random sampling strategies. The readability of RICFs was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Readability Grade Level (FKRGL) formulas available in Microsoft Word Office and by manual check. Data were collected using the assessment checklist, analyzed, and presented with SPSS and MS Excel software.
resultsOut of 266 RICFs assessed, 65.4% had the recommended page numbers, 81.6% had longer sentences, and 80.5% were difficult to read, necessitating a person to acquire a US grade 10 (Form Four educational level in Tanzania) to understand the presented information. Pearson's correlation coefficient with p-values of < 0.001 and 95% confidence level disclosed that sentence lengths in the RICFs had a statistical association with the difficult reading levels obtained.
conclusionFindings from this study showed that most of the RICFs were concise in terms of page numbers and word count but had long and difficult sentences. Researchers should assess the readability of RICFs before submitting them for ethical approval. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) should consider inclusion of RICFs readability measurements in the Ethics Guidelines for Health Research. The study recommends further studies to assess the Kiswahili versions of RICFs to determine if the results obtained in this study apply to Kiswahili texts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.