Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41902712›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2026

A randomized control trial of re-designed and shorter research informed consent forms to improve comprehension.

Ezekiel J Emanuel, Samantha Lopez-Rico, Merjan Lijerón Ozisik, Eli Silvert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ezekiel J EmanuelDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9796-5735
Samantha Lopez-RicoDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Merjan Lijerón OzisikDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-4929-1593
Eli SilvertDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0445-4395

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsInformed consent forms are an essential component of ethical clinical research. However, they are failing. They are long, legalistic, and written at an 11th-grade reading level. Consequently, many participants have poor comprehension of the research they are considering. Our objective is to assess participant comprehension and satisfaction across three informed consent forms of different lengths and formats including one based on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2024 draft summary template.

methodsIn total, 334 healthy participants from AmeriSpeak's online survey panel were recruited via email and AmeriSpeak's member portal, oversampling less educated individuals and those from racial and ethnic minority groups. Participants were randomized to three informed consent forms-long, medium, and short-and were asked to imagine hypothetically being a patient considering joining a study. They were given a brief introduction on the purpose of informed consent forms and of this project's goal to evaluate comprehension, satisfaction, and willingness to join the described hypothetical study but were not told the hypothesis or that there were three different informed consent forms. The long informed consent form (21 pages) was used in an actual international Bristol Myers Squibb study concerning a stroke prevention regimen. The long informed consent form contained longer paragraphs and lists and was written just below an 11th-grade level. The long informed consent form was modified to create the medium (14 pages) and short informed consent forms (3 pages), which both used simpler words, shorter sentences, less passive voice, tables, and other patient-friendly edits to achieve below sixth-grade reading levels. The short informed consent form was adapted from the Food and Drug Administration's 2024 draft summary template.

resultsThe medium informed consent form (mean score of 79.3%) scored significantly higher on comprehension than the long informed consent form (65.7% mean score, p < 0.001) or the short informed consent form (69.3% mean score, p = 0.006). Compared to the long informed consent form, fewer medium informed consent form participants found their informed consent form "too long" or "too detailed." Compared to the long and medium informed consent forms, more short informed consent form participants reported wanting more information on study procedures.

conclusionThe medium-length informed consent form, written at a sixth-grade reading level, with shorter words and sentences, tables, and enhanced formatting, produced significantly better comprehension than longer or shorter informed consent forms. The short informed consent form produced the same level of comprehension as a long informed consent form used in approved clinical trials. Researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and institutional review boards should adopt these informed consent form modifications to increase participant comprehension and satisfaction.

Indexed as

ComprehensionConsent FormsInformed ConsentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultequityInformed consentinformed consent formresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID41902712
PMCPMC13451594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.