Development of a New Tool for Writing Research Key Information in Plain Language.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of research informed consent forms makes it hard for potential study participants to make informed consent decisions. In response, new rules for human research protection require informed consent forms to begin with a key information section that potential study participants can read and understand. This research study builds on exiting guidance on how to write research key information using plain language. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable tool to evaluate and improve the readability, understandability, and actionability of the key information section on research informed consent forms. METHODS: We developed an initial list of measures to include on the tool through literature review; established face and content validity of measures with expert input; conducted four rounds of reliability testing with four groups of reviewers; and established construct validity with potential research participants. KEY RESULTS: We identified 87 candidate measures via literature review. After expert review, we included 23 items on the initial tool. Twenty-four raters conducted 4 rounds of reliability testing on 10 informed consent forms. After each round, we revised or eliminated items to improve agreement. In the final round of testing, 18 items demonstrated substantial inter-rater agreement per Fleiss' Kappa (average = .73) and Gwet's AC1 (average = .77). Intra-rater agreement was substantial per Cohen's Kappa (average = .74) and almost perfect per Gwet's AC1 (average = 0.84). Focus group feedback (N = 16) provided evidence suggesting key information was easy to read when rated as such by the Readability, Understandability and Actionability of Key Information (RUAKI) Indicator. CONCLUSION: The RUAKI Indicator is an 18-item tool with evidence of validity and reliability investigators can use to write the key information section on their informed consent forms that potential study participants can read, understand, and act on to make informed decisions. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2024;8(1):e29-e37.].

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Research informed consent forms describe key information about research studies. People need this information to decide if they want to be in a study or not. A helpful form begins with a short, easy-to-read key information section. This study created a tool researchers can use to write the key information about their research people can read, understand, and use.

Comparative Effectiveness of a Web-Based Patient Decision Aid for Therapeutic Options for Sickle Cell Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea, chronic blood transfusions, and bone marrow transplantation are efficacious, disease-modifying therapies for sickle cell disease but involve complex risk-benefit trade-offs and decisional dilemma compounded by the lack of comparative studies. A patient decision aid can inform patients about their treatment options, the associated risks and benefits, help them clarify their values, and allow them to participate in medical decision making. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a literacy-sensitive Web-based patient decision aid based on the Ottawa decision support framework, and through a randomized clinical trial estimate the effectiveness of the patient decision aid in improving patient knowledge and their involvement in decision making. METHODS: We conducted population decisional needs assessments in a nationwide sample of patients, caregivers, community advocates, policy makers, and health care providers using qualitative interviews to identify decisional conflict, knowledge and expectations, values, support and resources, decision types, timing, stages and learning, and personal clinical characteristics. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 10. Alpha testing of the patient decision aid prototype was done to establish usability and the accuracy of the information it conveyed, and then was followed by iterative cycles of beta testing. We conducted a randomized clinical trial of adults and of caregivers of pediatric patients to evaluate the efficacy of the patient decision aid. RESULTS: In a decisional needs assessment, 223 stakeholders described their preferences, helping to guide the development of the patient decision aid, which then underwent alpha testing by 30 patients and 38 health care providers and iterative cycles of beta testing by 87 stakeholders. In a randomized clinical trial, 120 participants were assigned to either the patient decision aid or standard care (SC) arm. Qualitative interviews revealed high levels of usability, acceptability, and utility of the patient decision aid in education, values clarification, and preparation for decision making. On the acceptability survey, 72% (86/120) of participants rated the patient decision aid as good or excellent. Participants on the patient decision aid arm compared to the SC arm demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in decisional self-efficacy (P=.05) and a reduction in the informed sub-score of decisional conflict (P=.003) at 3 months, with an improvement in preparation for decision making (P<.001) at 6 months. However, there was no improvement in terms of the change in knowledge, the total or other domain scores of decisional conflicts, or decisional self-efficacies at 6 months. The large amount of missing data from survey completion limited our ability to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the patient decision aid. The patient decision aid met 61 of 62 benchmarks of the international patient decision aid collaboration standards for content, development process, and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a patient decision aid for sickle cell disease with extensive input from stakeholders and in a randomized clinical trial demonstrated its acceptability and utility in education and decision making. We were unable to demonstrate its effectiveness in improving patient knowledge and involvement in decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03224429; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03224429 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02326597; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02326597.