开发一种用通俗语言撰写研究关键信息的新工具。

Q2 Medicine
Health literacy research and practice Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.3928/24748307-20240218-01
Sabrina Kurtz-Rossi, Ifechi Augusta Okonkwo, Ye Chen, Noe Dueñas, Timothy Bilodeau, Alice Rushforth, Andreas Klein
{"title":"开发一种用通俗语言撰写研究关键信息的新工具。","authors":"Sabrina Kurtz-Rossi, Ifechi Augusta Okonkwo, Ye Chen, Noe Dueñas, Timothy Bilodeau, Alice Rushforth, Andreas Klein","doi":"10.3928/24748307-20240218-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>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 (<i>N</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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. [<b><i>HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice</i>. 2024;8(1):e29-e37.</b>].</p>","PeriodicalId":36651,"journal":{"name":"Health literacy research and practice","volume":"8 1","pages":"e30-e37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10923613/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a New Tool for Writing Research Key Information in Plain Language.\",\"authors\":\"Sabrina Kurtz-Rossi, Ifechi Augusta Okonkwo, Ye Chen, Noe Dueñas, Timothy Bilodeau, Alice Rushforth, Andreas Klein\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/24748307-20240218-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>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 (<i>N</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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. [<b><i>HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice</i>. 2024;8(1):e29-e37.</b>].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health literacy research and practice\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"e30-e37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10923613/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health literacy research and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20240218-01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health literacy research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20240218-01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:研究知情同意书的复杂性使潜在的研究参与者很难做出知情同意的决定。为此,人类研究保护的新规定要求知情同意书以潜在研究参与者能够阅读和理解的关键信息部分开头。本研究在如何使用通俗易懂的语言撰写研究关键信息的现有指南基础上开展:本研究旨在开发一种有效可靠的工具,用于评估和改进研究知情同意书关键信息部分的可读性、可理解性和可操作性:方法:我们通过文献综述编制了一份拟纳入工具的初步措施清单;根据专家意见确定了措施的表面和内容效度;与四组评审人员进行了四轮可靠性测试;并与潜在的研究参与者确定了构建效度:我们通过文献综述确定了 87 个候选测量指标。经过专家评审,我们在初始工具中纳入了 23 个项目。24 名评审员对 10 份知情同意书进行了 4 轮可靠性测试。每轮测试后,我们都会修改或删除项目,以提高一致性。在最后一轮测试中,根据 Fleiss' Kappa(平均值 = 0.73)和 Gwet's AC1(平均值 = 0.77),18 个项目的评分者之间的一致性很高。根据科恩 Kappa(平均 = 0.74)和 Gwet AC1(平均 = 0.84),评分者之间的一致性非常高。焦点小组反馈(N = 16)提供的证据表明,关键信息的可读性、可理解性和可操作性(RUAKI)指标评定的关键信息是易于阅读的:RUAKI 指标是一个 18 个项目的工具,具有有效性和可靠性的证据,研究者可以用它来编写知情同意书中的关键信息部分,使潜在的研究参与者能够阅读、理解并采取行动做出知情决定。[HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2024;8(1):e29-e37.]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.].

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health literacy research and practice
Health literacy research and practice Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信