IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0110139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Informed Consent: How Much Awareness Is There?

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Purcaru
  • Adrian Preda
  • Daniela Popa
  • Marius Alexandru Moga
  • Liliana Rogozea

Abstract

Improving the informed consent process in clinical research is of constant concern to regulatory authorities in the field and presents a challenge for both the specialists and patients involved. Informed consent is a process that should adequately match the complexity of clinical research. In analyzing the behaviour of 68 patients during the informed consent process related to the clinical research performed at Neomed Clinical Center in Brasov, we found that many patients do not ask any questions (35.3%). From those who do, part of the questions (20,6%) referred to general aspects (addressed the form but not the gist) of the clinical trial, some (72,8%) referred to specific aspects of the clinical trial they will attend and others (6,6%) unrelated to the clinical trial. These results suggest a lack of interest, awareness, and understanding of the information presented in the informed consent form. The possible underlying causes of this attitude and its bureaucratic, ethic, and legal implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Purcaru & Adrian Preda & Daniela Popa & Marius Alexandru Moga & Liliana Rogozea, 2014. "Informed Consent: How Much Awareness Is There?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-6, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110139
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110139
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110139&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0110139?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0110139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.