This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Judith Sloan, MAT; Gene D. Resnick, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(10):1170-1173.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IT HAS been more than a decade since the Code of Federal Regulations¹ clearly defined the responsibility of the research investigator to obtain written consent from human subjects engaged in clinical trials. The "elements of consent" have been widely disseminated by various federal agencies concerned with the protection of human subjects engaged in research.^2,3

Researchers, regulatory affairs experts, and institutional review board members possess more than a basic knowledge of consent requirements. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fact sheets are readily available for reinforcement, and most hospitals circulate consent form prototypes as templates. Why, then, is the consent form the biggest stumbling block for most investigators? Why, in the face of easy, step-by-step instructions for the investigator, do most consent forms require two and three revisions? How can principal investigators be taught to view the consent form as a useful tool in educating prospective subjects rather than a . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Development Office at Long Island Jewish Medical Center New Hyde Park, NY 11042; Department of Medical Affairs at IN VIVO, Inc New York (NY) Hospital Cornell University Medical Center and the Schering-Plough Research Institute Kenilworth, NJ 07033

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?