Assessment of knowledge and perceptions on leishmaniasis: An island-wide study in Sri Lanka.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a notifiable disease in Sri Lanka with increasing case numbers reported from every part of the country. In addition to disease treatment and vector control measures, knowledge and perceptions in a community are key contributors to a successful intervention program. An island-wide survey was carried out to assess the knowledge and perceptions regarding CL across the island, with 252 confirmed CL cases and 2,608 controls. Data was collected by trained personnel, using a pre-tested Case Reporting Form (CRF). Although the percentage who referred to CL by its correct name was low (1.4%), majority stated that it is a fly induced skin disease (79.1%). Knowledge on the symptoms, curability and the name of the vector was high in these communities, but specific knowledge on vector breeding places, biting times and preventive methods were poor. The patients were more knowledgeable when compared to the controls. Differences in the level of knowledge could be identified according to the level of education of the participants as well as across the different areas of the country. The main source of information was through the healthcare system, but the involvement of media in educating the communities on the disease was minimal. While this study population was unaccustomed to the use of repellants or sprays, the use of bed nets was high (77.7% of the participants) in this study population. Although misconceptions and incorrect practices are rare in Sri Lankan communities, promoting health education programs which may improve disease awareness and knowledge on vector and its control will further strengthen the control and prevention strategies.

What information and the extent of information research participants need in informed consent forms: a multi-country survey.

BACKGROUND: The use of lengthy, detailed, and complex informed consent forms (ICFs) is of paramount concern in biomedical research as it may not truly promote the rights and interests of research participants. The extent of information in ICFs has been the subject of debates for decades; however, no clear guidance is given. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine the perspectives of research participants about the type and extent of information they need when they are invited to participate in biomedical research. METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important). RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.