Neurocognitive indicators predict results of an informed-consent quiz among substance-dependent treatment seekers entering a randomized clinical trial

15Citations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: This study sought to determine the extent to which key aspects of a clinical trial's protocol were recalled by participants entering a clinical trial for alcohol and illicit substance-use treatment after standard informed-consent procedures, as well as to explore the possible relationships between recall, neuropsychological functioning, and substance-use outcomes. Method: Before entering a randomized clinical trial testing the effectiveness of a computer-based training version of cognitive-behavioral therapy, 76 participants (55% male) meeting criteria for current substance dependence (according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition) completed a 14-item true/false quiz that assessed their comprehension of basic information provided in the consent form. Results: Only 15% of participants correctly answered all 14 consent quiz items. The percentage of correct recall was associated with measures of intelligence (r =.29, p =.01) and attention (r = -.26, p =.04). Quiz scores were also moderately associated with the amount of substance use during the treatment period (r = -.26, p =.03). Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of formally evaluating research participants' understanding of the informed-consent process, and they call to attention the potential utility of a brief neuropsychological screening to identify individuals in need of enhanced consent procedures, particularly within vulnerable populations, such as substance users.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kiluk, B. D., Nich, C., & Carroll, K. M. (2010). Neurocognitive indicators predict results of an informed-consent quiz among substance-dependent treatment seekers entering a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(5), 704–712. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2010.71.704

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free