Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 3

5579 - Quality of informed consent in clinical trials patients

Date

30 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 3

Presenters

Gianluca Catania

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v825-v828. 10.1093/annonc/mdz274

Authors

G. Catania1, A. Dal Molin2, N. Diaz3, A. Bagnasco1, M. Zanini1, G. Aleo1, D. Grosso4, S. Montalti5, C. Caldara6, R. Sperlinga7, A. Lacamera8, A. Zeneli9, L. Sasso1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Department Of Health Sciences - Dissal, University of Genova, 16132 - Genova/IT
  • 2 Dipartimento Di Medicina Translazionale, Università del Piemonte Orientale, 28100 - Novara/IT
  • 3 Gestione Del Rischio Clinico, Qualità, Accreditamento, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, 16132 - Genova/IT
  • 4 Direzione Delle Professioni Sanitarie, IRCCS Istituto Oncologico Veneto, 35128 - Padova/IT
  • 5 Nursing Directory, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, 47014 - Meldola/IT
  • 6 Responsabili Processi Socioassistenziali Territoriali, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII- Bergamo, 24127 - Bergamo/IT
  • 7 Presidio Ospedaliero, Ospedale Cottolengo, 10152 - Torino/IT
  • 8 Oncology Unit, Ospedale Villa Scassi, 16100 - Genova/IT
  • 9 Direzione Infermieristica E Tecnica, Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) IRCCS, 47014 - Meldola/IT
More

Resources

Abstract 5579

Background

One of the critical ethical requirements of conducting clinical research regardless of the study setting is to obtain informed consent before enrolling subjects’ participants. It is crucial to ensure quality and validity of the informed consent of study’s participants.

Methods

We used a quantitative survey design using the Italian validated version of the Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) questionnaire. We included 7 Italian cancer sites and 300 clinical trials patients.

Results

All the patients invited accepted to fill the questionnaire. Most of them were male (N = 130), and the mean age was 60 (sd 10). Most of them were satisfied with the information received, and they considered themselves to be well informed. The average score for objective understanding was 62.2 and for subjective understanding was 74.6 (p < 0.001). Subjects responded correctly to questions about the general understanding of participation in research. Only 33% understood which procedures were experimental, and 40% of respondents knew foreseeable risks or discomfort from the research. In ANOVA analysis, an increased understanding was associated with a higher level of education.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that investigators should invest more effort to improve clinical trials subjects reach a safer understanding of the informed consent. The clinical trials nursing role is crucial to protect the clinical trial participants rights.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Gianluca Catania.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings