• Users Online: 689
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 334-338

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials in India: A cross-sectional survey


1 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Sector 22, Kharghar, Mumbai 410210, Maharashtra, India
2 Public Health Research Centre, New York University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Correspondence Address:
Vikram Gota
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre, Sector 22, Kharghar, Mumbai 410210, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-258X.262900

Background. An ‘informed consent’ is a legal and ethical requirement for research involving human subjects. Studies assessing the validity of informed consent and determinants of its quality have highlighted problems in consent delivery and comprehension by trial participants. We report the findings of a questionnaire-based survey conducted to understand the quality of informed consent (QuIC) in cancer clinical trials. Methods. The survey was conducted in a single tertiary care cancer centre in India. Patients enrolled in phase 1, 2 or 3 interventional studies were administered the QuIC questionnaire by a trained study coordinator. The QuIC, expressed as knowledge score, was calculated from the proportion of correct responses expressed as a percentage. Results. The mean (SD) knowledge score was 60.46% (1 5.21%). It was considerably higher in industry-sponsored trials compared to investigator-initiated trials (65.32% v. 52.21%, respectively; p<0.001). Faith in the treating oncologist positively influenced the patients’ decision to participate in a trial. Nearly 97% of the respondents anticipated better care, while 85% felt that the new drug/procedure would be better than the existing treatment. Free treatment emerged as a strong inducement for patients to take part in clinical trials. Patients were aware of their autonomy, and responses showed that none of the patients were coerced or unduly influenced to participate in clinical trials. Conclusion. Our study revealed important deficiencies in research participants’ understanding of essential elements of informed consent. Thorough patient counselling is crucial to minimize ‘therapeutic misconception’ to preserve the validity of informed consent in cancer trials.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed701    
    Printed5    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded444    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal