Table 3

Results of trials of extended discussion intervensions
Standard control Sample size Understanding scores, %
Source Intervention Population Scenario Control Intervention P Value
Sarkar et al., 2010 Standardized, focus group discussion with study nurse in place of individual counseling° Parents of malnourished children in Vellore, India Real 118 73 73 NS
Freer et al., 2009 Y Information leaflet and supplementary, standardized discussion with study staff° Parents in United Kingdom Simulated 21 69 85 0.015
Y Information leaflet and supplementary, standardized discussion with study staff° Parents in United States Simulated 20 66 75 NS
Aaronson et al., 1996 Same presentation formats. Supplementary telephone conversation with oncology nurse° Patients with cancer Real 230 66 83 <.001§
Tindall et al., 1994 Y Supplementary conversation with enrolling physician° Patients with HIV Real 113 60 63 NS∞
Simes et al., 1986 Uniform consent procedure ensuring total disclosure of information by physicians° Patients with cancer Real 57 62 74 0.0001*

Abbreviations: NA Not Available, NS Not Significant, HIV human immunodeficiency virus.

Bolded rows indicate trials included in the 2004 systematic review by Flory and Emanuel.

°Human proctor available for question/answer.

* P value is for the overall outcomes which include "willingness to participate" and "anxiety".

§ Scores based on an “awareness scale” in an interview format after approximately 1 week.

∞ Understanding assessed at approximately 1 week.

Nishimura et al.

Nishimura et al. BMC Medical Ethics 2013 14:28   doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-28

Open Data