Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (34)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tomamichel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cavalli, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tomamichel, M.
Right arrow Articles by Cavalli, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 6:363-369, 1995
© 1995 European Society for Medical Oncology

research-article

Informed consent for phase I studies: Evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients*

M. Tomamichel1, C. Sessa2,, S. Herzig1, J. de Jong2, O. Pagani2, Y. Willems2 and F. Cavalli2

1Department of Psychosocial Care Lugano
2Division of Oncology, Ospedale San Giovanni Bellinzona, Switzerland

Correspondence to: Cristiana Sessa, M.D., Oncology Department, Ospedale San Giovanni, CH-6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland

BACKGROUND: The process by which patients are informed and their consent is obtained in phase I trials has thus far been only marginally studied. Since 1986 we have followed an oral procedure, consisting of three consecutive conversations in which the investigator responsible for phase I studies, the research nurse and the patients' relatives and/or friends also participate, followed by the patients signing of a written consent form. It is required that six items of information considered essential by our staff be conveyed to patients by the responsible investigator. Meerwein's model, which defines three main dimensions of the informing process (the information itself, the emotional and interactive aspects), has been studied to ascertain whether it can be applied to evaluate the quality of the information proffered.

METHODS: Thirty-two conversations were taped, transcribed and evaluated by one psychiatrist and one psychologist. A quantitative analysis of information was performed by calculating the number of patients to whom the essential items of information had been conveyed. The qualitative analysis was performed by rating on a five-point scoring system, from 1 (very bad) to 5 (excellent), the three dimensions of the informing process for each patient and by calculating for each dimension the mean score of the constituent items.

RESULTS: Complete information about the characteristics of the phase I drug and the modalities of the treatment and follow up was given to almost 80% of the patients. All but one of the items of the information dimension scored 3.5 or higher, with the one related to the assessment by the doctor of the patient's understanding at the end of the consultation scoring less than 3 in 53% of the patients. All items of the emotional dimension scored higher than 3.5. Greater difficulty was encountered by the physician with the interactive dimension, the lowest mean scores being reported on the items related to the doctor's awareness of the indirectly expressed anxieties of the patients. In 71% of the consultations the three dimensions of information scored more than 3 and balanced one another, indicating a successful consultation by the Meerwein model.

CONCLUSIONS: The informed consent procedure applied was satisfactory from a quantitative point of view, and the main items of information were acceptable to the patients. Meerweins's model proved to be applicable and useful for identifying pitfalls in communication. Greater attention should be paid to the indirect messages and implied criticisms of the patients to improve their participation in decision making. Physicians should become more skillful in providing adequate information and improve their methods of communication.

informed consent, phase I studies, quality of information


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
J. Seidenfeld, E. Horstmann, E. J. Emanuel, and C. Grady
Participants in Phase 1 Oncology Research Trials: Are They Vulnerable?
Arch Intern Med, January 14, 2008; 168(1): 16 - 20.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
M. Agrawal, C. Grady, D. L. Fairclough, N. J. Meropol, K. Maynard, and E. J. Emanuel
Patients' Decision-Making Process Regarding Participation in Phase I Oncology Research
J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2006; 24(27): 4479 - 4484.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
M. Agrawal and E. J. Emanuel
Ethics of Phase 1 Oncology Studies: Reexamining the Arguments and Data
JAMA, August 27, 2003; 290(8): 1075 - 1082.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
R. D. Pentz, A. L. Flamm, J. Sugarman, M. Z. Cohen, G. Daniel Ayers, R. S. Herbst, and J. L. Abbruzzese
Study of the Media's Potential Influence on Prospective Research Participants' Understanding of and Motivations for Participation in a High-Profile Phase I Trial
J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2002; 20(18): 3785 - 3791.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.