A pilot study of the quality of informed consent materials for Aboriginal participants in clinical trials.
Loading...
Date
2005-08-31
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Affiliation(s)
(Russell, Carapetis) Melbourne University, Department of Paediatrics, Centre for International Child Health, Flemington Road, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia
(Carapetis) Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
(Carapetis) Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
(Liddle, Edwards, Devitt) Menzies School of Health Research, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health, Darwin, NT, Australia
(Ruff) GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
(Carapetis) Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
(Carapetis) Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
(Liddle, Edwards, Devitt) Menzies School of Health Research, Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal and Tropical Health, Darwin, NT, Australia
(Ruff) GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
Year
2005
Citation
Journal of Medical Ethics. Vol.31(8), 2005, pp. 490-494.
Journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Conference name
Conference location
Grant information
Abstract
Objective: To pilot informed consent materials developed for Aboriginal parents in a vaccine trial, and evaluate their design and the informed consent process. Method(s): Cross sectional quantitative and qualitative survey of 20 Aboriginal and 20 non-Aboriginal women in Alice Springs. Information about the proposed research was presented to Aboriginal participants by an Aboriginal researcher, using purpose designed verbal, visual, and written materials. Non-Aboriginal participants received standard materials developed by the sponsor. Questionnaires were used to evaluate recall and understanding immediately and five days later. Qualitative analysis of Aboriginal participants' interviews was performed. Result(s): There were no differences between the groups in understanding of diseases prevented by the vaccine, the potential risks of participating, or the voluntary nature of participation. Most Aboriginal participants had difficulty with the concept of a "licensed" versus "unlicensed" vaccine. The non-Aboriginal group had a good understanding of this. Aboriginal participants identified the use of the flipchart, along with a presentation by a doctor and Aboriginal health worker, as preferred delivery modes. Group presentations were preferred rather than one-on-one discussions. The use of the questionnaire posed considerable methodological difficulties. Conclusion(s): A one-off oral presentation to Aboriginal participants is unlikely to produce "informed consent". Key but unfamiliar concepts require identification and particularly considered presentation.
PubMed ID
16076978 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=16076978]
Type
Article
Study type
Qualitative study
Subjects
Infectious diseases
Health literacy
Health literacy