A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research.

Empirical data regarding payments to participants in research is limited. This lack of information constrains our understanding of the effectiveness of payments to achieve scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion. We conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov to determine what information researchers provide regarding payment. We extracted data from HIV (n = 101) and NIMH-funded studies (n = 65) listed on clinicaltrials.gov that had publicly posted a consent form. Using a manifest content analysis approach, we then coded the language regarding payment from the consent document and, where available, protocol for purpose and method of the payment. Although not part of our original planned analysis, the tax-related information that emerged from our content analysis of the consent form language provided additional insights into researcher payment practices. Accordingly, we also recorded whether the payment section mentioned social security numbers (or other tax identification number) in connection with payments and whether it made any statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service or the tax status of payments. We found studies commonly offered payment, but did not distinguish between the purposes for which payment may be offered (i.e., compensation, reimbursement, incentive, or appreciation). We also found studies that excluded some participants from receiving payment or treated them differently from other participants in the study. Differential treatment was typically linked to US tax laws and other legal requirements. A number of US studies also discussed the need to collect Social Security numbers and income reporting based on US tax laws. Collectively, these practices disadvantage some participants and may interfere with efforts to conduct more inclusive research.

Principal Features of Industry-Funded Trials that Posted Informed Consent Forms on ClinicalTrials.gov: a Cross-Sectional Analysis.

We aim to characterize industry-funded trials that have posted the informed consent forms (ICFs), and to assess whether the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' could impact several relevant variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov on all industry-funded trials registered on or before 25 February 2023. We registered types of intervention, current recruitment status, design, enrollment, and countries involved. For trials with special interest to potential participants and investigators and/or clinicians an analysis of the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' was performed. Of 116,281 industry-funded trials registered, 741 (0.6%) had posted ICFs. Most of these trials were categorized as 'completed' (n = 408) or 'terminated' (n = 107). The review of a sample of 359 trials showed that most were on drugs and/or biologics (59%), were randomized (51%), conducted exclusively in the USA (72%), and had posted results (79%), protocols (92%), and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) (89%). Trials in which industry participated as 'collaborator' were significantly more likely to post ICFs when trials were in the 'active, not recruiting' phase (OR 4.70, 99.71% CI 1.59-13.9, p < 0.001) than industry-sponsored trials. This was also the case when assessing drugs/biologics (OR 2.64, 99.71% CI 1.25-5.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, companies acting as 'sponsors' were significantly more likely to post ICFs with trials assessing devices, radiation interventions and/or diagnostic tests (OR 0.37, 99.71% CI 0.17-0.79, p < 0.001) than when participating as 'collaborators'. While industry-funded trials rarely post ICFs, when they do, they are highly compliant with transparency requirements. Regulations and ethics codes should consider requiring posting of protocols, SAPs, and ICFs for all clinical trials, regardless the type of sponsor.

[Nationally standardized broad consent in practice: initial experiences, current developments, and critical assessment]. / National standardisierter Broad Consent in der Praxis: erste Erfahrungen, aktuelle Entwicklungen und kritische Betrachtungen.

BACKGROUND: The digitalization in the healthcare sector promises a secondary use of patient data in the sense of a learning healthcare system. For this, the Medical Informatics Initiative's (MII) Consent Working Group has created an ethical and legal basis with standardized consent documents. This paper describes the systematically monitored introduction of these documents at the MII sites. METHODS: The monitoring of the introduction included regular online surveys, an in-depth analysis of the introduction processes at selected sites, and an assessment of the documents in use. In addition, inquiries and feedback from a large number of stakeholders were evaluated. RESULTS: The online surveys showed that 27 of the 32 sites have gradually introduced the consent documents productively, with a current total of 173,289 consents. The analysis of the implementation procedures revealed heterogeneous organizational conditions at the sites. The requirements of various stakeholders were met by developing and providing supplementary versions of the consent documents and additional information materials. DISCUSSION: The introduction of the MII consent documents at the university hospitals creates a uniform legal basis for the secondary use of patient data. However, the comprehensive implementation within the sites remains challenging. Therefore, minimum requirements for patient information and supplementary recommendations for best practice must be developed. The further development of the national legal framework for research will not render the participation and transparency mechanisms developed here obsolete.

An absence of translated consent forms limits oncologic clinical trial enrollment for limited English proficiency participants.

OBJECTIVES: A lack of diversity amongst participants in cancer clinical trials has raised scrutiny over the past decade. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are further excluded. One modifiable reason for low LEP participation is a lack of non-English consent forms. METHODS: We queried the clinical trials registry database at an academic hospital serving a predominantly Spanish-speaking patient population. Clinical trials related to gynecology oncology were evaluated for the availability of fully translated Spanish consent forms, the racial and ethnic identification of enrolled patients, and the number of signed Spanish consents. Enrolment data was compared before and after 2019, when institutional financial support for document translation was withdrawn. RESULTS: Sixteen gynecologic oncology clinical trials were opened between 2014 and 2022, with 10 trials enrolling 128 patients. Eight trials opened prior to 2019, all with fully translated consent forms. Seven of these trials enrolled 99 participants, 70% of whom identified as Hispanic and 60% who signed a Spanish consent. Eight trials opened after 2019 and one had a fully translated consent form. Three of the trials enrolled 29 participants, with 10% of subjects identifying as Hispanic and none signing a Spanish consent form. CONCLUSIONS: There was a decrease in fully translated clinical trial consent forms for gynecologic oncology studies following the loss of subsidized translation services in our single institution with a predominantly LEP population. This correlated with a decrease in enrollment of Hispanic subjects. To increase enrollment of diverse participants, including those with LEP, simple actions such as fully translating consent forms would help maintain equity in research conduct and improve clinical outcomes through trial involvement.

Towards objectivity in ethical assessment: legibility as part of informed consent form comprehension.

BACKGROUND: The experience on informed consent form (ICF) readability at the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Cancerology of Mexico (INCan) is described. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the readability of a randomly-selected sample of ICFs submitted for review between March 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023. The number of pages, the time the reader takes to read the text and the level of education necessary to understand it were determined. RESULTS: More than half the ICFs from internal investigations were shown to be somewhat or very difficult to read; the level of education required to understand them was up to 9.9 years, and the reading time was short. The ICF texts from international multicenter investigations were aimed at an average education level of 5.5 years and had normal readability. Most ICFs from external trials require a reading time of more than 60 minutes per ICF. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to have tools that provide objectivity to the evaluation of ICFs under investigation by ethics committees, which should be indicators of their comprehension, such as readability of the documents.

ANTECEDENTES: Se describe la experiencia sobre la legibilidad de los formatos de consentimiento informado (FCI) del Comité de Ética en Investigación del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología de México. OBJETIVO: Evaluar la legibilidad de una muestra seleccionada aleatoriamente de FCI sometidos para revisión entre el 1 de marzo de 2022 y el 31 de marzo de 2023. Se determinó el número de páginas, el tiempo que el lector invierte para leer el texto y el grado de escolaridad necesario para comprenderlo. RESULTADOS: Más de la mitad de FCI de investigaciones internas mostraron ser algo o muy difíciles de leer, la escolaridad necesaria para comprenderlos fue hasta de 9.9 años y el tiempo de lectura fue corto. Los textos de los FCI de investigaciones internacionales multicéntricas estuvieron dirigidos a un nivel escolar promedio de 5.5 años y tuvieron una legibilidad normal. La mayor parte de los ensayos externos requiere un tiempo de lectura superior a los 60 minutos por FCI. CONCLUSIÓN: Es necesario disponer de herramientas que den objetividad a la evaluación de los FCI en investigación por parte de los comités de ética y sean indicadores de su comprensión, tales como la legibilidad de los documentos.

Can we do it better? Consent in dentoalveolar surgery.

Obtaining informed consent is essential for any medical or dental procedure. Dentoalveolar surgery poses numerous risks due to the complex environment and anatomy of the oral cavity. Failure to seek and correctly document consent may lead to claims in negligence, as demonstrated by the increasing litigation in OMFS. We audited dentoalveolar surgery consent forms at two different UK OMFS units and found that many forms failed to document important material risks associated with procedures. In an attempt to improve the consent process, we developed a standardised form containing a list of risks for dentoalveolar surgery that can be affixed to the consent form. We suggest other OMFS units adopt this form to standardise the consent process and optimise patient care while protecting clinicians from medico-legal claims.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment.

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

Experimenting with modifications to consent forms in comparative effectiveness research: understanding the impact of language about financial implications and key information.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent forms are intended to facilitate research enrollment decisions. However, the technical language in institutional templates can be unfamiliar and confusing for decision-makers. Standardized language describing financial implications of participation, namely compensation for injury and costs of care associated with participating, can be complex and could be a deterrent for potential participants. This standardized language may also be misleading in the context of comparative effectiveness trials of standard care interventions, in which costs and risk of injury associated with participating may not differ from regular medical care. In addition, the revised U.S. Common Rule contains a new requirement to present key information upfront; the impact of how this requirement is operationalized on comprehension and likelihood of enrollment for a given study is unknown. METHODS: Two online surveys assessed the impact of (1) changes to compensation for injury language (standard vs. tailored language form) and (2) changes to the key information page (using the tailored compensation language form with standard key information vs. modified key information vs. modified key information plus financial information) on both likelihood of enrollment in and understanding of a hypothetical comparative effectiveness trial. RESULTS: Likelihood of enrolling was not observed to be different between the standard and tailored language forms in Study 1 (73 vs. 75%; p = 0.6); however, the tailored language group had a higher frequency of understanding the compensation for injury process specific to the trial (25 vs. 51%; p < 0.0001). Modifications to the key information sheet in Study 2 did not affect likelihood of enrolling (88 vs. 85 vs. 85%; p = 0.6); however, understanding of randomization differed by form (44 vs. 59 vs. 46%; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that refining consent forms to clarify key information and tailoring compensation for injury language to the nature of the study, especially in the context of comparative effectiveness trials, may help to improve study comprehension but may not impact enrollment.

Variation in the interpretation and application of the Medicaid sterilization consent form among Medicaid officials.

OBJECTIVE: The Medicaid consent policy has been identified as a major barrier to desired permanent contraception, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. As each state may modify their state Medicaid sterilization consent form, variation in the form has been reported. This study aims to characterize state-level variation in Medicaid Title XIX consent form interpretation and application. STUDY DESIGN: We aimed to collect primary data from Medicaid officials in all 50 United States from January to May 2020 via a 25-question electronic survey regarding state-level consent form implementation. Questions targeted consent form details and definitions, insurance and billing, clinician correspondence, and administrative processes. We used Qualtrics XM to collect survey responses. We performed descriptive statistics on the survey responses. There were no exclusion criteria. RESULTS: We had 41 responses from 36/50 states (72% participation rate). Heterogeneity existed in the key definitions of "Premature Delivery" and "Emergency Abdominal Surgery." One in five respondents reported the consent form was only available in English. Variation among Current Procedural Terminology codes covered in each state's sterilization policy were noted. Nearly a quarter of respondents did not know how Medicaid informed healthcare providers of consent form denials. Most participants (90%) were unaware of differences between state sterilization policies. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates variation in terms of consent form definitions, procedures covered, correspondence with clinicians, and administrative review processes among state Medicaid offices regarding the sterilization consent form. Greater transparency is necessary in order to reduce administrative barriers to desired permanent contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Inconsistent interpretation poses an administrative barrier to care, raises concern regarding appropriate clinician reimbursement, and can potentially lead to unnecessarily denying patients the contraceptive option of their choice. Permanent contraception policies should be equitable no matter insurance status, preserve reproductive autonomy and effectively protect vulnerable populations.

Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Practices in Postpartum Sterilization Without a Valid Medicaid Consent Form.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the practices of obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) in the United States surrounding postpartum sterilization when the Medicaid consent form was not valid. METHODS: Using the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' online directory, we conducted a qualitative study where we recruited ob-gyns practicing in 10 geographically diverse U.S. states for a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews conducted by telephone. We analyzed interview transcripts using the constant comparative method and principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Thirty ob-gyns (63% women, 77% nonsubspecialized, and 53% academic setting) were interviewed. Although most physicians stated that they did not perform sterilizations without a valid Medicaid sterilization form, others noted that they sometimes did due to a sense of ethical obligation toward their patient's health, being in a role with more authority or seniority, interpreting the emergency justification section of the form more broadly, or backdating the form. The physicians who said that they never went ahead without a signed form tended to work at large institutions and were concerned with losing funding and engaging in potentially illegal or fraudulent behavior. CONCLUSION: Physicians' varied behaviors related to providing postpartum sterilization without a valid Medicaid consent form demonstrate that the policy is in need of revision. Unclear terminology and ramifications of the Medicaid sterilization policy need to be addressed to ensure equitable care.

Assessment of Length and Readability of Informed Consent Documents for COVID-19 Vaccine Trials.

Importance: Informed consent is a fundamental element of research ethics. The COVID-19 vaccine trials are high profile trials that have enrolled more than 100 000 participants. Consent documents must be succinct and understandable to ensure informed voluntary participation. Objective: To assess how well informed consent documents of the COVID-19 vaccine trials achieve the ideal of being succinct and understandable, and to create a shorter, more readable document. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study collected and analyzed the informed consent documents used in 4 COVID-19 vaccine phase III randomized clinical trials to quantitatively assess readability and length and, based on this analysis, created a measurably more accessible informed consent document. Analysis was conducted from October 2020 to January 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were number of words (measured as word count), time-to-read (measured at reading speeds of 175-300 words per minute), language complexity (measured using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment), and readability (measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score). Secondary outcomes included clarity of how the placebo group could access the vaccine if it is proven safe and effective. The study also examined the length and readability of an improved consent document. Results: The 4 informed consent documents were a mean (range) of 8333 (7821 to 9340) words long, with a mean (range) 35 (32.6 to 38.9) minutes to read at 240 words per minute. All documents exceeded grade 9 language complexity and scored lower than 60 in the formal reading ease metric, which constitutes difficult. Only 1 document specified that participants in the placebo group might receive vaccine. It was possible to write a document in fewer than 3000 words with a grade 7 to 8 reading level and a formal readability score that was not difficult. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that existing COVID-19 vaccine informed consent documents were too long, difficult to read, and exceeded grade 9 in language complexity. It was possible to create a shorter, more readable informed consent document for these trials.

COVID-19 highlights the policy barriers and complexities of postpartum sterilization.

Multiple barriers exist to sterilization in the postpartum period. One such barrier, the Medicaid Title XIX sterilization policy, requires publicly insured patients to complete a sterilization consent form at least 30 days prior to their scheduled procedure. While this policy was set in place in the 1970s to address the practice of coerced sterilization among marginalized women, it has served as a significant barrier to obtaining the procedure in the contemporary period. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted specific complexities surrounding postpartum sterilization and created additional barriers for women desiring this contraceptive method. Despite the time constraints to perform postpartum sterilization, some hospital administrators, elective officials, and state Medicaid offices deemed sterilization as "elective." Additionally, as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has revised telemedicine reimbursement and encouraged its increased use, it has provided no guidance for the sterilization consent form, use of oral consents, and change to the sterilization consent form expiration date. This leaves individual states to create policies and recommended procedures that may not be accepted or recognized by CMS. These barriers put significant strain on patients attempting to obtain postpartum sterilization, specifically for patients with lower incomes and women of color. CMS can support reproductive health for vulnerable populations by providing clear guidance to state Medicaid offices, extending the 180-day expiration of a sterilization consent form signed prior to the pandemic, and allowing for telemedicine oral consents with witnesses or electronic signatures.

Observational study of parental opinion of deferred consent for neonatal research.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinions of parents of newborns following their infant's enrolment into a neonatal research study through the process of deferred consent. DESIGN: Mixed-methods, observational study, interviewing 100 parents recently approached for deferred consent. SETTING: Tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit, Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS: All 100 parents interviewed had consented to the study/studies using deferred consent; 62% had also experienced a prospective neonatal consent process. Eighty-nine per cent were 'satisfied' with the deferred consent process. The most common reason given for consenting was 'to help future babies'. Negative comments regarding deferred consent mostly related to the timing of the consent approach, and some related to a perceived loss of parental rights. A deferred approach was preferred by 51%, 24% preferred a prospective approach and 25% were unsure. Those who thought prospective consent would not have been preferable cited impaired decision-making, inappropriate timing of an approach before birth and their preference for removal of the decision-making burden via deferred consent. Seventy-seven per cent thought they would have given the same response if approached prospectively; those who would have declined reported that a prospective approach under stressful conditions was unwelcome and too overwhelming. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 89% of parents of infants enrolled in neonatal research using deferred consent considered it acceptable and half would not have preferred prospective consent. The ability to make a more considered decision under less stressful circumstances was key to the acceptability of deferred consent.

A qualitative exploration of using financial incentives to improve vaccination uptake via consent form return in female adolescents in London.

OBJECTIVES: Incentivising vaccine consent form return may improve vaccine uptake and be seen as less coercive than incentivising vaccination itself. We assessed the acceptability of financial incentives in this context among adolescent females and explored potential mechanisms by which incentives might change behaviour. DESIGN: Focus groups and analysis of free-text questionnaire responses. METHODS: Study 1: 36 female secondary students in London (age 13-14) participated in six focus groups exploring the use of incentives in the context of vaccination. Data were analysed thematically. Study 2: was conducted to triangulate the findings of Study 1, by analysing free-text questionnaire responses from 181 female secondary students in London (age 12-13) reporting their opinion of incentivising consent form return. Data from Study 1 was also used to explore perceived potential mechanisms of action by which incentives might encourage consent form return. RESULTS: Focus group participants had positive attitudes towards incentives, with 61% of free-text responses also expressing this. Most focus group participants thought that incentives would encourage consent form return (18% of free-text respondents spontaneously also mentioned this). While incentivising consent form return was seen as ethical, focus group participants who incorrectly thought that vaccine receipt was being incentivised raised concerns about bribery, although only 4% of free text respondents reported these concerns. Frequently raised mechanisms of action included incentives increasing engagement with, and the perceived value of consent form return. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents had positive views of financially incentivising consent form return to promote vaccine uptake, although care must be taken to reduce misconceptions regarding what is being incentivised. Incentivising vaccination was seen as coercive, but incentivising actions that increase the likelihood of vaccination (i.e. consent form return) were not. Incentives may encourage adolescents to return consent forms by helping them engage with this behaviour or increasing its' perceived value.

Assessing Parent Decisions About Child Participation in a Behavioral Health Intervention Study and Utility of Informed Consent Forms.

Importance: Obtaining informed consent is an important ethical obligation for clinical research participation that is imperfectly implemented. Research on improving consent processes often focuses on consent forms, but little is known about consent forms' influence on decision-making compared with other types of engagement. Objective: To evaluate whether parents decide whether to enroll their children in research before or after they receive the consent form. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey of 88 parents who enrolled or declined to enroll their child in a weight management intervention study between January 2, 2018, and June 24, 2019, was conducted; surveys were completed between February 2, 2018, and July 9, 2019. A 31-item survey asked about impressions of the study throughout the enrollment process, timing of enrollment decisions, and decision-making factors. Responses were summarized descriptively and subgroups were compared using the Fisher exact test or χ2 test. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported timing of enrollment decision. Results: A total of 106 parents were approached and gave permission for their contact information to be shared with the study team; 22 additional parents declined to allow their information to be shared, and 24 lost contact with the partner study before they could be asked for permission. A total of 88 parents (67 enrollees, 21 decliners) completed the survey (83% participation rate); 79 of 88 reporting gender (instead of sex, as biological sex was not relevant to survey) information were women (91%), 66 participants (75%) were non-Hispanic White, and 63 participants (72%) had annual household incomes greater than or equal to $70 000. No significant differences in respondent characteristics between enrollees and decliners were identified. Fifty-nine parents (67%) responded that they decided whether to enroll in the weight management study before receiving the consent form. Only 17 of 69 parents (25%) who remembered receiving the consent form responded that it taught them new information. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that interventions to improve informed consent forms may have limited influence on decision-making because many research decisions occur before review of the consent form. It appears that regulatory review and interventions to improve decision-making should focus more on early engagement (eg, recruitment materials). Future studies should test timing of decisions in other types of research with different populations and clinical settings.

Perceptions and practice of state Medicaid officials regarding informed consent for female sterilization.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes, beliefs, and interpretations of individual state Medicaid office employees regarding their state's postpartum sterilization policy and its impact on patient care. STUDY DESIGN: We invited employees in all 50 state Medicaid director's offices who self- or peer-identified as best informed about the sterilization policy to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Using a pilot-tested interview guide, we transcribed, coded, and analyzed each interview. We attempted to obtain supplemental data, including relevant policy details and instructions for physicians in the state, from all 50 state Medicaid office websites. RESULTS: We collected data from 15 telephone interviews, four written responses, and 48 states' websites for analysis. Participants had varying responses regarding the impact of the Medicaid-mandated sterilization consent form in terms of informed consent as well as the utility and ramifications of the waiting period. State policies varied in terms of the age of consent, complexity of the form, availability of translations, use of unclear terminology, and the consent-obtaining process. CONCLUSION: State Medicaid employees have differences in opinions regarding the intent of the Medicaid-mandated sterilization consent form and policies. Better understanding of the variation in individual state policies that may contribute to inequitable access to sterilization is necessary. IMPLICATIONS: Provision of consistent guidelines and widespread coordination of the Medicaid sterilization policies in identified areas impacting informed consent may reduce existing obstacles and provide more equitable access to contraceptive care.

Assessment of the quality of patient information sheets and informed consent forms for clinical trials at a hospital neurology service.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinical trials (CTs) aimed at vulnerable groups, such as patients with mental disorders, create ethical complexity. The patient information sheet (PIS) should provide all of the information about the CT that is relevant to the subject's decision to participate. After being informed, the subject will decide freely whether to take part in the CT and will read and sign the informed consent form (ICF). The objective was to assess the quality of PISs/ICFs from a hospital neurology service. The assessment was made using validated and reliable checklists of the information included in the PISs/ICFs of CTs with medicinal products. METHODS: The study comprised analyses of compliance with the checklists of 21 PISs and ICFs reviewed/approved during 2016-2017 by a medicinal research ethics committee. RESULTS: All PISs/ICFs were from multicenter CTs sponsored by pharmaceutical companies in different therapeutic areas, mainly Parkinson's (52.4%) and Alzheimer's (38.1%) diseases. The PISs from the neurology service demonstrated good compliance (≥80%) with the checklist, whereas ICFs should be improved. Sponsors omitted some relevant information, such as the study title or that the participant be informed of any information arising from the research that may be relevant to the subject's health, although this information may be in the PIS. CONCLUSIONS: The PISs/ICFs of CTs of medicinal products that are currently used need improvement. PISs and ICFs should be separate documents for each CT. In particular, the PISs/ICFs should consider the criteria related to the decision of participants, protect their rights and ensure that the information received is complete.