Next Article in Journal
Etonogestrel Subdermal Implant in Adolescents: Everything We Should Know to Conduct Proper Counseling, a Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
C-Reactive Protein, International Normalized Ratio, and Fibrinogen in Diagnostic Scale of Complicated Acute Appendicitis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Clinics and Practice
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/clinpract15020026
clinpract-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review

by
José Manuel García-Álvarez
1,2,* and
Alfonso García-Sánchez
3,4
1
Resident Intern of Family and Community Medicine, Hospital Comarcal del Noroeste, 30400 Caravaca, Murcia, Spain
2
Health Sciences Program, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain
3
Medical Specialist in Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Department, Hospital de la Vega Lorenzo Guirao, 30530 Cieza, Spain
4
Clinical Simulation Instructor, Faculty of Nursing, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), 30107 Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Clin. Pract. 2025, 15(2), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15020026
Submission received: 16 November 2024 / Revised: 2 January 2025 / Accepted: 22 January 2025 / Published: 24 January 2025
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background/Objectives: The wording of informed consent forms for medical or surgical clinical procedures can be difficult to read and comprehend, making it difficult for patients to make decisions. The objective of this study was to analyze the readability of informed consent forms for medical or surgical clinical procedures. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA statement using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Primary studies analyzing the readability of informed consent forms using mathematical formulas published in any country or language during the last 10 years were selected. The results were synthesized according to the degree of reading difficulty to allow for the comparison of the studies. Study selection was performed independently by the reviewers to avoid the risk of selection bias. Results: Of the 664 studies identified, 26 studies were selected that analyzed the legibility of 13,940 forms. Of these forms, 76.3% had poor readability. Of the six languages analyzed, only English, Spanish, and Turkish had adapted readability indexes. Flesch Reading Ease was the most widely used readability index, although it would be more reliable to use language-specific indices. Conclusions: Most of the analyzed informed consent forms had poor readability, which made them difficult for a large percentage of patients to read and comprehend. It is necessary to modify these forms to make them easier to read and comprehend, to adapt them to each specific language, and to carry out qualitative studies to find out the real legibility of each specific population.

1. Introduction

The primary function of informed consent forms for medical or surgical clinical procedures is to inform patients about the procedure they are about to undergo [1,2].
In order for these informed consent forms to adequately fulfill their informative function, it is necessary that they include sufficient information in accordance with current scientific evidence [3,4]. It is also important that the written language used in these informed consent forms is adapted to the specific characteristics of the persons to whom they are addressed. This facilitates the reading and comprehension of the information they provide [5,6].
The complete and comprehensible information in these informed consent forms allows for a free, active, and voluntary decision to be made. This ensures compliance with bioethical principles and existing legal requirements regarding the informed consent process [7,8].
Readability is the quality that allows us to evaluate the ease of reading written documents using mathematical formulas that measure the length of the words and phrases they contain. It is considered that the shorter the length of words and phrases used in a written text, the easier it is to read and comprehend [9,10].
There are different formulas that make it possible to analyze the readability of informed consent forms by generating a score that will indicate the ease of reading or the academic level that would be necessary to be able to read and comprehend these forms. All the formulas consider that the higher the score or the lower the academic level required, the easier it will be to read the written text. The most commonly used formulas for analyzing the readability of informed consent forms are presented below [11,12,13,14,15,16].
The Flesch Readability Test or Flesch Reading Ease analyzes the readability of documents written in English based on the average number of words per sentence and syllables per word. This results in a score ranging from 0 (very difficult to read) to 100 (very easy to read), grouped into seven degrees of reading difficulty. It is considered that a score above 60 could be easily read by the majority of the population (Table 1) [11].
Flesch–Kincaid Level predicts reading ease based on the level of education an American person should have completed to be able to easily read and comprehend a given text. The reading ease score with this formula ranges from 0 to 18 grades. A level equal to or below eighth grade is considered adequate for a text to be easily read and comprehended by 80% of American readers (Table 1) [11].
The SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) Readability Index assesses the readability of English texts in terms of the years of education Americans need to comprehend a given text. It is calculated by counting the number of words with three or more syllables in 10 randomly selected sentences at the beginning, middle, and end of the text. Its score is between 0 and 18, considering a value equal to or lower than 8 is adequate to be easily read by most people (Table 1) [12].
The Gunning Fog Readability Index analyzes the readability of English texts by calculating the years of formal education a person needs to comprehend the text on first reading. The score is based on the number of complex words per sentence contained in three randomly chosen 100-word passages. It is scored between 0 and 20, considering that if the score is lower than 8, the comprehension of the text is usually almost universal (Table 1) [13].
The Szigriszt Pazos Perspicuity Formula or Flesch–Szigriszt Readability Index is an adaptation of the Flesch Readability Test for texts written in Spanish. Although it also presents a score from 0 to 100 that is divided into seven degrees of reading difficulty, it considers a score above 51 to be easily understandable by the majority of the population (Table 2) [14].
The INFLESZ Readability Index, based on the Flesch–Szigriszt Readability Index, is specifically validated to analyze the readability of health texts written in Spanish. It also scored between 0 and 100, although only five degrees of reading difficulty were established. It is considered that a text with a score equal to or higher than 55 can be read and comprehended by a large percentage of patients (Table 2) [14].
The Ateşman Readability Formula is a Turkish adaptation of the Flesch Readability Test. Although it also presents a score from 0 to 100, it is grouped into five categories, and a value above 50 is considered to present an almost universal comprehension for the Turkish population (Table 3) [15].
The Bezirci–Yılmaz Readability Formula uses the total number of sentences in the text, the number of words, the number of syllables, the number of letters, and the number of words with more than four syllables to determine the readability of the text written in the Turkish language. The score obtained provides a value of the Turkish educational level needed to be able to read the text easily. It is considered that a value below 8 can be read and comprehended by the majority of the Turkish population (Table 3) [15].
It would be interesting to know the readability of informed consent documents for medical and surgical clinical procedures written in different languages to determine whether they can guarantee the ethical and legal functions they are intended to perform. Most studies on the readability of informed consent forms have been conducted with a highly educated Western population, usually excluding minority groups. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct studies that include all population groups in order to adapt these forms to the characteristics of the target population in order to facilitate their reading and enable their comprehension [5,6,7,8].
It was decided to review the clinical informed consent forms because their wording and content are less controlled than those of informed consent forms for research, being susceptible to greater variability.
The objective of this study was to determine the readability of informed consent documents for medical and surgical clinical procedures in different languages and to analyze the relationship between the different indices used.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Protocol

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, although it has not been registered [16].

2.2. Search Strategy

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases during June 2024. The search strategy used the keywords “informed consent form”, “informed consent forms”, “informed consent document”, “informed consent documents”, and readability along with the Boolean operators AND and OR. So, the final search strategy in both databases was (“consent form” OR “consent forms” OR “consent document” OR “consent documents” OR “consent documents”) AND readability.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For this review, we selected primary studies that analyzed the readability of consent forms for medical or surgical clinical procedures using mathematical formulas that were published in any country or language during the last 10 years.

2.4. Study Selection and Data Extraction

The studies obtained after the initial search in the different databases were selected on the basis of the title and abstract. Subsequently, the initially included articles were read in their entirety to select those that fully met the inclusion criteria. For each article finally selected, the following information was collected in a table: author(s) and year of publication; country; language; scope and number of informed consent forms analyzed; formula for assessing readability used; results obtained with each formula; and the degree of difficulty of reading according to the formula used. The data in the main table were grouped into other, more specific tables to facilitate comprehension. This process was carried out independently by the authors, although those articles with discrepancies were analyzed jointly to reach a consensus decision. No other variables were included in the selected studies.

2.5. Data Synthesis

As the readability formulas used were different, the degree of reading difficulty (qualitative polytomous variable) was used to compare the readability of the informed consent documents analyzed in the selected studies. Therefore, a qualitative systematic review was performed to compare the studies according to the frequency and percentage of the result of this variable as a summary measure.

2.6. Study Risk of Bias Assessment

Given that the selected studies analyze the readability of all the medical or surgical informed consent forms available in each study setting with the different existing formulas, they present little risk of bias. Therefore, it is only necessary to control the risk of selection bias. To this end, the selection process was carried out independently by the authors, jointly analyzing those in which there was a discrepancy in order to reach a consensus decision.

3. Results

The literature search found 664 studies analyzing the readability of informed consent forms. A total of 35 studies remained after eliminating duplicate articles, and those that, after reading the title and abstract, were found not to use any tool to measure readability. These 35 studies were read in their entirety; eight articles were excluded because they did not use any mathematical formula to measure readability, and one article was excluded because it was a systematic review that analyzed the modification of the elements of the informed consent form and not the readability. Finally, 26 studies (Figure 1) were subjected to a detailed analysis (Table 4).
The language most frequently used in the 13,940 informed consent forms for medical and surgical clinical procedures analyzed was English, followed by Spanish and Turkish (Table 5).
The most used readability index was the Flesch Reading Ease. This index is specific to texts written in English (Table 6).
Most studies analyzed to assess the readability of informed consent forms for medical and surgical clinical procedures present difficulties reading them (76.3%) (Table 7).
The analyzed informed consents written in English, regardless of the readability index used, were mostly difficult to read (84%) (Table 8).
Most informed consent forms written in Spanish were difficult to read, regardless of the readability index used. Using indexes specific to the Spanish language (INFLESZ and Flesch–Szigriszt), it was observed that one form with reading difficulty using the Gunning Fog index, which is originally from the English language, presented a normal reading difficulty (Table 9).
A high percentage (57.9%) of the analyzed informed consent forms written in the Turkish language presented readability difficulties, especially those with English-specific indices. Turkish-specific indices (Ateşman and Bezirci–Yılmaz) obtained mostly normal readability scores for the same forms (Table 10).
The rest of the analyzed informed consent forms written in other languages presented difficult readability using specific indexes for the English language (Table 11).

4. Discussion

Most of the analyzed studies showed that informed consent forms for medical and surgical clinical procedures presented low readability (76.3%), regardless of the country, language, or index used to evaluate it. These results may hinder the patients’ comprehension of these forms and condition their ability to choose [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
Only six languages were used in the informed consent forms analyzed. The most commonly used languages were English, Spanish, and Turkish. These results are indicative of the fact that researchers who have been more interested in knowing the actual readability of texts written in their own language have developed their own readability indices or have adapted indices originally developed for other languages [11,12,13,14,15].
It is important that patients who are going to undergo medical or surgical clinical procedures susceptible to complications are able to adequately read and comprehend informed consent forms to avoid the ethical and legal repercussions that lack of information can have [43,44,45].
Flesch Reading Ease has been the most widely used index to assess the readability of the informed consent forms analyzed, possibly because it is included in the most widely used word processing applications. It has been observed that this index only predicts 75% of the patient’s comprehension of the written documents when used in conjunction with the multiple-choice tests used to analyze the comprehension of these texts. Therefore, this index may overestimate readability and be less suitable for predicting comprehension of healthcare texts [46].
The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index was the second most used readability scale in this research. It is considered the most appropriate index for analyzing the readability of healthcare texts as it has been developed to predict 100% comprehension. It is based on more recent criteria for determining reading level and is easy to use because it only requires counting the number of words with three or more syllables and not the individual count of each syllable [46].
In most of the informed consent forms analyzed, several indices were used to assess readability. When several readability indices are used simultaneously to analyze the same text, it is advisable to choose the score of the specific readability index for that language as the most reliable. If this is not possible because there is no index for that language, the index that indicates greater reading difficulty or the need for a higher academic level for easy reading should be chosen [46].
The indices created to assess the readability of informed consent forms written in English indicate greater reading difficulty when used in other languages compared to their own indices [25,31,32,34,35]. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the indices in English in other languages or create our own scales in order to know the real readability of the texts written in each language [14,15]. Readability scores can be greatly influenced by grammatical differences between different languages [47]. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the readability of informed consent forms in Spanish-speaking patients by using specific indexes for the Spanish language (INFLESZ and Flesch–Szigriszt) in order to obtain real results [31,35].
In order to improve the readability of informed consent forms, different aspects of the text must be taken into account: content; style; presentation; format; and organization. These aspects are included in linguistic readability and topographical readability. Linguistic readability refers to the semantic and syntactic characteristics of the text. Typographic readability refers to the visual perception of the text (arrangement of the text on the page, font type and size used, use of italics or bold, etc.). Readability indices exclusively analyze linguistic readability, being necessary to perform a real evaluation of the readability of these forms by means of qualitative research techniques that also evaluate topographical readability, such as the self-report and descriptive narrative method [46,48,49,50].
To improve the linguistic and topographical readability of informed consent forms, it is necessary to take into account a series of recommendations that have proven to be useful. These recommendations include limiting the number of pages, using short and simple sentences and words, minimizing the use of abbreviations, symbols, and specific terms, avoiding sentences in passive voice, including explanatory drawings, increasing the spaces between paragraphs, and highlighting relevant information [29,34,41,48,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].
Informed consent forms should be limited to as few pages as possible and should not exceed six pages [41,55]. Words of less than three syllables, sentences of less than twelve words, and paragraphs of less than seven lines should be used [54].
It is preferable to use sans serif fonts such as Arial or Calibri with a size greater than fourteen so that they are easy for the elderly or visually impaired to read [51,55]. It is important to place the most relevant information at the beginning of each paragraph to more easily capture the attention of patients [58]. It is convenient to transform passive to active voice sentences to facilitate the identification of the subject who actually performs the action and to favor comprehension [58]. It could also be very useful to involve the specific population at whom these forms are aimed so that they participate in their drafting and in deciding on the final version [41,57,59]. Another option that could be useful to improve the readability of these forms could be for a person outside the healthcare profession but with appropriate training in biomedical language to adapt them to the language commonly used by patients by working together with the healthcare professionals involved in the informed consent process and with community education professionals [18,19,32,60,61].
In addition to the ease of reading, comprehension is also influenced by other reader factors such as academic and sociocultural level, previous knowledge of health issues, motivation, and the conditions in which reading is performed that favor or hinder concentration. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account all these factors to understand the population’s real comprehension of these informed consent forms [41,46,53,58,60,62].
Suitability is the adequacy of written texts to promote reading and comprehension in a given population. There are instruments, such as the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), that analyze suitability by assessing six areas, including content, literacy demand, graphic illustrations, design and typography, learning stimulation and motivation, and cultural appropriateness. These instruments can be used to improve informed consent forms and facilitate their comprehension by patients [63,64].
The limitations of this study derive from the readability formulas used, mainly because not all long words or phrases are necessarily difficult to read, and not all short words or phrases are necessarily easy to read. In addition, these readability formulas do not evaluate typographical elements or other aspects of the text that influence the readability of these forms. Therefore, readability formulas are not able to establish with complete accuracy the ease or difficulty of reading informed consent forms for a given population.
Another limitation is the review of studies that analyze the readability of informed consent forms written in a few languages. In addition, only three languages use their own readability formulas. Therefore, the results of this review cannot be generalized to all languages and countries.

5. Conclusions

Most of the informed consent forms for medical or surgical clinical procedures analyzed had poor readability, making them difficult to read for a large percentage of patients.
The difficulty in reading the informed consent forms for analyzed medical or surgical clinical procedures limits their comprehension and is a major obstacle for the persons involved in making a free and voluntary decision to undergo a clinical procedure.
It is necessary to modify the informed consent forms for clinical medical or surgical procedures by establishing specific measures to facilitate reading and improve comprehension. To this end, the linguistic and sociocultural factors of the entire target population should be taken into account. This would facilitate the reading and comprehension of these forms by minority population groups that are usually excluded from studies analyzing their readability.
In order to adequately analyze the readability of informed consent forms for medical or surgical clinical procedures and obtain real results, it is necessary to use readability formulas specifically adapted for each language. In addition, qualitative studies should be carried out to analyze those aspects that are not measured by these formulas in order to determine the real readability and comprehension of these forms for a given population.

Author Contributions

J.M.G.-Á. and A.G.-S., conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of this manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Vikas, H.; Kini, A.; Sharma, N.; Gowda, N.R.; Gupta, A. How informed is the informed consent? J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2021, 10, 2299–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bazzano, L.A.; Durant, J.; Brantley, P.R. A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information. Ochsner J. 2021, 21, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. García-Álvarez, J.M.; Díaz-Agea, J.L.; Suárez-Cortés, M.; Molina-Rodríguez, A.; Jiménez-Ruiz, I.; García-Sánchez, A. Formal Quality and Compliance of Informed Consent Forms in Critical Care and Surgical Areas in Spain: An Observational Study. Nurs. Rep. 2023, 13, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Spatz, E.S.; Bao, H.; Herrin, J.; Desai, V.; Ramanan, S.; Lines, L.; Dendy, R.; Bernheim, S.M.; Krumholz, H.M.; Lin, Z.; et al. Quality of informed consent documents among US hospitals: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e033299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pietrzykowski, T.; Smilowska, K. The reality of informed consent: Empirical studies on patient comprehension-systematic review. Trials 2021, 22, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kashur, R.; Ezekowitz, J.; Kimber, S.; Welsh, R.C. Patients acceptance and comprehension to written and verbal consent (PAC-VC). BMC Med. Ethics 2023, 24, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pallocci, M.; Treglia, M.; Passalacqua, P.; Tittarelli, R.; Zanovello, C.; De Luca, L.; Caparrelli, V.; De Luna, V.; Cisterna, A.M.; Quintavalle, G.; et al. Informed Consent: Legal Obligation or Cornerstone of the Care Relationship? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wiertz, S.; Boldt, J. Ethical, Legal, and Practical Concerns Surrounding the Implemention of New Forms of Consent for Health Data Research: Qualitative Interview Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024, 26, e52180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Szabó, P.; Bíró, É.; Kósa, K. Readability and Comprehension of Printed Patient Education Materials. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 725840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goff, A.J.; Barton, C.J.; Merolli, M.; Zhang, A.S.; Ki-Cheong, C.; De Oliveira, D. Comprehensiveness, accuracy, quality, credibility and readability of online information about knee osteoarthritis. Health Inf. Manag. 2023, 52, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jindal, P.; MacDermid, J.C. Assessing Reading Levels of Health Information: Uses and Limitations of Flesch Formula. Educ. Health 2017, 30, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Dalillah, N.A.; Ismayanti, F.; Azzahra, E.F.; Kusmana, S.; Rahayu, I. SMOG (Simple Measure of Goobledygook) Readibility Index in Selecting Reading Materials and Reading Literacy Skills of Primary School Student. Int. J. Elem. Educ. 2024, 13, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yaffe, P. Fog index: Is it really worth the trouble? Ubiquity 2022, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ballesteros-Peña, S.; Fernández-Aedo, I. Legibility analysis of drug package leaflets using Flesch-Sszigriszt index and Inflesz score. An. Sist. Sanit. Navar. 2013, 36, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Demirci, A.N.; İncebay, Ö.; Köse, A. Evaluation of quality and readability of internet information on voice disorders. Public Health 2024, 226, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Moher, D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lin, G.T.; Mitchell, M.B.; Hammack-Aviran, C.; Gao, Y.; Liu, D.; Langerman, A. Content and Readability of US Procedure Consnent Forms. JAMA Intern. Med. 2024, 184, 214–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. García-Álvarez, J.M.; García-Sánchez, A. Readability and Comprehension of Anesthesia Informed Consent Forms in a Spanish County Hospital: An Observational Study. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 1338–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. García-Álvarez, J.M.; García-Sánchez, A. Nursing Roles in the Quality of Information in Informed Consent Forms of a Spanish County Hospital. Nurs. Rep. 2024, 14, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Issa, T.Z.; Lee, Y.; Mazmudar, A.S.; Lambrechts, M.J.; Sellig, M.; Hilibrand, A.S.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Schroeder, G.D.; Kepler, C.K. Readability of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Spine Surgery and Implications for Health Literacy. Spine 2024, 49, 811–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hannabass, K.; Lee, J. Readability Analysis of Otolaryngology Consent Documents on the iMed Consent Platform. Mil. Med. 2023, 188, 780–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Dağdelen, C.; Erdemoğlu, E. Determination of the Readability Level of Consent Forms Used in the Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic at Suleyman Demirel University. Cureus 2023, 15, e37147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Morales-Valdivia, E.; Brady, A.M.; Mariscal-Crespo, M.I.; Camacho-Bejarano, R. A comprehensive analysis of the readability of consent forms for blood transfusion in Spain. Blood Transfus. 2023, 21, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Peiris, R.; Cornell, S.; Greaves, K.; Bonner, C. Do hospital consent forms for cardiology procedures meet health literacy standards? Evaluation of understandability and readability. Patient Educ. Couns. 2022, 105, 1254–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Dural, İ.E. Are Consent Forms Used in Cardiology Clinics Easy to Read? Turk. Kardiyol. Dern. Ars. 2022, 50, 590–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Meade, M.J.; Dreyer, C.W. How readable are orthognathic surgery consent forms? Int. Orthod. 2022, 20, 100689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Meade, M.J.; Dreyer, C.W. Orthodontic treatment consent forms: A readability analysis. J. Orthod. 2022, 49, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ay, I.E.; Doğan, M. An Evaluation of the Comprehensibility Levels of Ophthalmology Surgical Consent Forms. Cureus 2021, 13, e16639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Del Valle, M.; Coronado-Vázquez, M.V.; Mariscal-Crespo, M.I. Readability of the informed consent forms in Flanders using the Douma index: Analyzing the documents that help patients make decisions. Clin. Ethics 2021, 16, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pastore, G.; Frazer, P.M.; Mclean, A.; Walsh, T.P.; Platt, S. Readability of foot and ankle consent forms in Queensland. ANZ J. Surg. 2020, 90, 2549–2552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. García, E.; San Norberto, E.M.; Fidalgo, L.; Cenizo, N.; Estévez, I.; Vaquero, C. Informed consents readability in vascular surgery and its progress over time. J. Healthc. Qual. Res. 2020, 35, 355–363. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sönmez, M.G.; Sönmez, L.Ö.; Kozanhan, B.; Dündar, Z.D. Is There a Difference Between the Readabilities of Informed Consent Forms Used for Elective and Emergency Procedures in Turkey? Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 2020, 54, 626–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Santel, F.; Bah, I.; Kim, K.; Lin, J.A.; McCracken, J.; Teme, A. Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: A survey of informed consents from FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2019, 85, 105831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sönmez, M.G.; Kozanhan, B.; Özkent, M.S.; Ecer, G.; Boğa, M.S.; Demirelli, E.; Öztürk, A. Evaluation of the readability of informed consent forms used in urology: Is there a difference between open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery? Turk. J. Surg. 2018, 34, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mariscal-Crespo, M.I.; Coronado-Vázquez, M.V.; Ramirez-Durán, M.V. Global analysis of the readability of the informed consent forms used in public hospitals of Spain. Rev. Calid. Asist. 2017, 32, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sivanadarajah, N.; El-Daly, I.; Mamarelis, G.; Sohail, M.Z.; Bates, P. Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2017, 99, 645–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. López-Picazo, J.J.; Tomás, N. Evaluation and improvement of the comprehension of informed consent documents. Cir. Esp. 2016, 94, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. López-Picazo, J.J.; Tomás-Garcia, N.; Ros, M.P. Can anybody understand the informed consent documents? A proposal to make it easier. Rev. Calid. Asist. 2016, 31, 182–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nair, S.C.; Ibrahim, H.; Askar, O.S. Comparison of good clinical practice compliance and readability ease of the informed consents between observational and interventional clinical studies in the Emirates. Perspect. Clin. Res. 2016, 7, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eltorai, A.E.; Naqvi, S.S.; Ghanian, S.; Eberson, C.P.; Weiss, A.P.; Born, C.T.; Daniels, A.H. Readability of Invasive Procedure Consent Forms. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2015, 8, 830–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vučemilo, L.; Borovečki, A. Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Medical Procedures in Croatia. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 0138017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boztaş, N.; Özbilgin, Ş.; Öçmen, E.; Altuntaş, G.; Özkardeşler, S.; Hancı, V.; Günerli, A. Evaluating the Readibility of Informed Consent Forms Available Before Anaesthesia: A Comparative Study. Turk. J. Anaesthesiol. Reanim. 2014, 42, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bhimani, A.D.; Macrinici, V.; Ghelani, S.; Huang, E.Y.; Khan, N.I.; Saw, T.A.; Mejia, A. Delving Deeper Into Informed Consent: Legal and Ethical Dilemmas of Emergency Consent, Surrogate Consent, and Intraoperative Consultation. Orthopedics 2018, 41, e741–e746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Da Silva, M.C.; Almeida, C.; Penha, A.; de Souza, N.; Marcon, M.R.; Lolli, L.F. Legal and Ethical Knowledge Applied to Implantodontics. J. Health Sci. 2019, 21, 504–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Orel, L.; Savchenko, V.; Baitaliuk, O.; Oblovatska, N. Legal Aspects of the Informed Consent of the Patient During Physical Therapy in Ukraine. Fizjoterapia Pol. 2021, 21, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang, L.W.; Miller, M.J.; Schmitt, M.R.; Wen, F.K. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2013, 9, 503–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hamnes, B.; van Eijk-Hustings, Y.; Primdahl, J. Readability of patient information and consent documents in rheumatological studies. BMC Med. Ethics 2016, 17, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Emanuel, E.J.; Boyle, C.W. Assessment of Length and Readability of Informed Consent Documents for COVID-19 Vaccine Trials. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2110843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Burgess, L.J.; Gerber, B.; Coetzee, K.; Terblanche, M.; Agar, G.; Kotze, T.J. An evaluation of informed consent comprehension by adult trial participants in South Africa at the time of providing consent for clinical trial participation and a review of the literature. Open Access J. Clin. Trials 2019, 11, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Choi, I.S.; Choi, E.Y.; Lee, I.H. Challenges in informed consent decision-making in Korean clinical research: A participant perspective. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0216889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bothun, L.S.; Feeder, S.E.; Poland, G.A. Readability of Participant Informed Consent Forms and Informational Documents: From Phase 3 COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials in the United States. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2021, 96, 2095–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Fischer, A.E.; Venter, W.D.F.; Collins, S.; Carman, M.; Lalla-Edward, S.T. The readability of informed consent forms for research studies conducted in South Africa. S. Afr. Med. J. 2021, 111, 180–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Fuente-Cortez, B.E.; García-Vielma, C. Readability analysis of informed consent forms for genetic tests in Mexico. Gac. Med. Mex. 2021, 157, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Samadi, A.; Asghari, F. Readability of informed consent forms in clinical trials conducted in a skin research center. J. Med. Ethics Hist. Med. 2016, 9, 7. [Google Scholar]
  55. Wen, G.; Liu, X.; Huang, L.; Shu, J.; Xu, N.; Chen, R.; Huang, Z.; Yang, G.; Wang, X.; Xiang, Y.; et al. Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Phase II-IV Clinical Trials in China. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Twist, E.; Lawrence, D.J.; Salsbury, S.A.; Hawk, C. Do informed consent documents for chiropractic clinical research studies meet readability level recommendations and contain required elements: A descriptive study. Chiropr. Man. Therap. 2014, 22, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Barrio-Cantalejo, I.; Simón-Lorda, P.; Jiménez, M.M.; Ruiz, A.M. Consensus on the legibility criteria of health education leaflets. An. Sist. Sanit. Navar. 2011, 34, 153–165. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ferrando, V. Legibility: A fundamental factor for understanding a text. Aten. Primaria 2004, 34, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Foglia, E.E. Can we make informed consent forms more informative? Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal. Neonatal. Ed. 2018, 103, F398–F399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Assumpção, C.; da Silva, N.; Coca, L.G.; Moreira, O.J.; Olej, B. Comprehension of informed consent in clinical research. Rev. Bioet. 2016, 24, 184–194. [Google Scholar]
  61. Glaser, J.; Nouri, S.; Fernandez, A.; Sudore, R.L.; Schillinger, D.; Klein-Fedyshin, M.; Schenker, Y. Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures: An Updated Systematic Review. Med. Decis. Mak. 2020, 40, 119–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Bea-Muñoz, M.; Medina-Sánchez, M.; Flórez-García, M.T. Readability and internet accessibility of informative documents for spinal cord injury patients in Spanish. An. Sist. Sanit. Navar. 2015, 38, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Noblin, A.M.; Zraick, R.I.; Miller, A.N.; Schmidt-Owens, M.; Deichen, M.; Tran, K.; Patel, R. Readability and Suitability of Information Presented on a University Health Center Website. Perspect. Health Inf. Manag. 2022, 19, 1f. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Simonds, V.W.; Buchwald, D. Too Dense and Too Detailed: Evaluation of the Health Literacy Attributes of an Informed Consent Document. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 2020, 7, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Clinpract 15 00026 g001
Figure 1. Flowchart based on PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 1. Flowchart based on PRISMA guidelines.
Clinpract 15 00026 g001
Table 1. Indices for assessing readability in the English language.
Table 1. Indices for assessing readability in the English language.
IndexReading Difficulty
Very DifficultDifficultSomewhat DifficultNormalEasy EnoughEasyVery Easy
Flesch Reading Ease0–3030–5050–6060–7070–8080–9090–100
Flesch–Kincaid level16–1812–168–126–85–64–5<4
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook 17–1813–178–137–86–75–6<5
Gunning Fog 17–2013–178–137–86–75–6<5
Table 2. Indices for assessing readability in the Spanish language.
Table 2. Indices for assessing readability in the Spanish language.
IndexReading Difficulty
Very DifficultDifficultSomewhat DifficultNormalEasy EnoughEasyVery Easy
Flesch–Szigriszt0–1515–3535–5050–6565–7575–8585–100
INFLESZ0–40 40–5555–6565–80 80–100
Table 3. Indices for assessing readability in the Turkish language.
Table 3. Indices for assessing readability in the Turkish language.
IndexReading Difficulty
Very
Difficult		Somewhat DifficultNormalEasy EnoughVery
Easy
Ateşman1–3030–5050–7070–9090–100
Bezirci–Yılmaz>1613–168–134–8<4
Table 4. Details of selected studies.
Table 4. Details of selected studies.
StudyCountryLanguageScopeNumberIndexResultReading Difficulty
Lin et al., 2024 [17]USAEnglishMedical104FKL11 ± 5.6 (¿?)Somewhat difficult
García-Álvarez and García-Sánchez, 2024 [18]SpainSpanishAnesthesia4INFLESZ44.8 ± 1.3
(42.9–45.6)		Somewhat difficult
García-Álvarez and García-Sánchez, 2024 [19]SpainSpanishSurgery37INFLESZ50.7 ± 5.6
(42.5–58.7)		Somewhat difficult
Issa et al., 2024
[20]		USAEnglishSpine
surgery		15FRE69.2 ± 17.2
(10–96.4) 		Normal
SMOG8.1 ± 2.6
(3.1–25.6)		Normal
Hannabass and Lee., 2023
[21]		USAEnglishOtorhinolary-ngology27FRE45.1 ± ¿?(¿?) Difficult
FKL11.7 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
GF15.5 ± ¿? (¿?) Difficult
SMOG14.6 ± ¿? (¿?)Difficult
Dağdelen and Erdemoğlu, 2023 [22]TurkeyTurkishGynecology and obstetrics18Ateşman38.6 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
BY17.3 ± ¿? (¿?)Very difficult
Morales-Valdivia et al., 2023 [23]SpainSpanishBlood transfusion45INFLESZ50.6 ± 4.5
(42.1–62.8)		Somewhat difficult
Peiris et al., 2022
[24]		USAEnglishRadiology399SMOG12.1 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
GF10.5 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
FRE51.6 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
Dural, 2022
[25]		TurkeyTurkishCardiology20GF16.7 ± 0.6 (¿?)Difficult
FRE22.4 ± 0.8 (¿?)Very difficult
Ateşman55.5 ± 3.6
(47.6–60.9)		Normal
BY11.6 ± 1.5
(9.2–14.5)		Normal
Meade and Dreyer, 2022
[26]		AustraliaEnglishOrthognathic surgery26SMOG12.3 ± ¿?(¿?)Somewhat difficult
FKL11.5 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
FRE52.3 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
Meade and Dreyer, 2022
[27]		AustraliaEnglishOrthognathic procedures59SMOG11.2 ± ¿?
(10.8–11.5)		Somewhat difficult
FRE40.14 ± ¿? (33.9–46.3)Difficult
Ay and Doğan, 2021
[28]		TurkeyTurkishOphthalmic surgery40Ateşman55.6 ± 5.7 (¿?)Normal
BY10 ± 2 (¿?)Normal
del Valle Ramírez-Durán
et al., 2021 [29]		FlandersDutchMedical and surgical75FRE46 ± ¿? (¿?) Difficult
Pastore et al., 2020
[30]		AustraliaEnglishOrthopedic surgery23FKL11.6 ± 1.2 (¿?)Somewhat difficult
SMOG7.5 ± 0.2 (¿?)Normal
García et al., 2020
[31]		SpainSpanishCardiac surgery38FRE11.9 ± 2.6 (¿?)Somewhat difficult
GF16 ± 1.1 (¿?)Difficult
FZ¿?Normal
INFLESZ¿?Normal
Sönmez et al., 2020
[32]		TurkeyTurkishMedical and surgical387Ateşman 54.8 ± 5.7 (¿?) Normal
BY9.8 ± 1.5 (¿?)Normal
GF17.2 ± 1.3 (¿?) Very difficult
FRE23.3 ± 1.3 (¿?)Very difficult
Santel et al., 2019
[33]		USAEnglishRadiology399SMOG14.1 ± 1.2 (¿?)Difficult
FKL10.5 ± 1.3 (¿?)Somewhat difficult
FRE48.6 ± 5.2 (¿?)Difficult
Sönmez et al., 2018
[34]		TurkeyTurkishUrology69GF17 ± 1.7 (¿?)Very difficult
FRE23.1 ± 2 (¿?)Very difficult
Ateşman55.1 ± 7.3 (¿?)Normal
BY9.6 ± 1.8 (¿?)Normal
Mariscal-Crespo et al.,
2017 [35]		SpainSpanishMedical and surgical11,339INFLESZ98.3% < 55Somewhat difficult
FZ48.7 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
Sivanadarajah et al., 2017 [36]EnglandEnglishOrthopedic surgery58FRE63.6 ± ¿? (61.2–66.0)Normal
López-Picazo and Tomás, 2016 [37]SpainSpanishMedical and surgical132INFLESZ44.1 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
López-Picazo JJ et al., 2016 [38] SpainSpanishMedical and surgical359INFLESZ45.8 ± ¿? (¿?)Somewhat difficult
Nair et al., 2016
[39]		United Arab EmiratesArabicMedical159FRE35.7 ± 3.6 (¿?)Difficult
FKL12.4 ± 0.4 (¿?)Difficult
Eltorai et al., 2015
[40]		USAEnglishSurgical11FRE29.9 ± 12.5 (¿?) Very difficult
FKL14.9 ± 3.8 (¿?)Difficult
GF17.5 ± 2.7 (¿?) Very difficult
SMOG13.6 ± 2.6 (¿?)Difficult
Vučemilo et al., 2015
[41]		CroatiaCroatianMedical and surgical52SMOG13.2 ± 1.5
(10–19)		Difficult
Boztaş et al., 2014
[42]		TurkeyTurkishMedical and surgical45GF22.9 ± ¿?
(8.2–25.2)		Difficult
FRE20.5 ± ¿?
(18.9–21.9)		Difficult
Ateşman33.2 ± ¿?
(26.0–37.0)		Somewhat difficult
Notes: Result = mean ± standard deviation (minimum value, maximum value); ¿? = unknown values; FRE = Flesch Reading Ease; FKL = Flesch–Kincaid Level; SMOG = Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index; GF = Gunning Fog Index; BY = Bezirci–Yılmaz Readability Formula; FZ = Flesch–Szigriszt Index.
Table 5. Languages analyzed in the selected studies.
Table 5. Languages analyzed in the selected studies.
FrequencyPercentage
English1038.5
Spanish726.9
Turkish623.1
Arabic13.8
Dutch13.8
Croatian13.8
Total26100
Table 6. Readability indices used in selected studies.
Table 6. Readability indices used in selected studies.
IndexFrequencyPercentage
Flesch Reading Ease1525.4
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook915.3
Gunning Fog 813.6
INFLESZ711.9
Flesch–Kincaid Level711.9
Ateşman610.2
Bezirci–Yılmaz58.5
Flesch–Szigriszt23.4
Total59100
Table 7. Analysis of the readability of the selected studies.
Table 7. Analysis of the readability of the selected studies.
Reading DifficultyFrequencyPercentage
Normal1423.7
Somewhat difficult2135.6
Difficult1627.1
Very difficult813.6
Total59100
Table 8. Readability of informed consent forms written in English.
Table 8. Readability of informed consent forms written in English.
IndexStudiesReading Difficulty (%)
Frequency (%)NormalSomewhat
Difficult		DifficultVery
Difficult
Flesch Reading Ease8 (32%)2 (25%)2 (25%)3 (37.5%)1 (12.5%)
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook8 (32%)2 (25%)3 (37.5%)3 (37.5%)-
Flesch–Kincaid Level6 (24%)-5 (83.3%)1 (16.7%)-
Gunning Fog 3 (12%)-1 (33.3%)1 (33.3%)1 (33.3%)
Total2541182
Table 9. Readability of informed consent forms written in Spanish.
Table 9. Readability of informed consent forms written in Spanish.
IndexStudies Reading Difficulty (%)
Frequency (%)NormalSomewhat DifficultDifficult
INFLESZ7 (63.6%)1 (14.3%)6 (85.7%)-
Flesch–Szigriszt2 (18.2%)1 (50%)1 (50%)-
Flesch Reading Ease1 (9.1%)-1 (100%)-
Gunning Fog 1 (9.1%)--1 (100%)
Total11281
Table 10. Readability of informed consent forms written in Turkish.
Table 10. Readability of informed consent forms written in Turkish.
IndexStudiesReading Difficulty (%)
Frequency (%)NormalSomewhat
Difficult		DifficultVery
Difficult
Ateşman6 (31.6%)4 (66.7%)2 (33.3%)
Bezirci–Yılmaz5 (26.3%)4 (80%) 1 (20%)
Flesch Reading Ease4 (21.1%) 1 (25%)3 (75%)
Gunning Fog 4 (21.1%) 2 (50%)2 (50%)
Total198236
Table 11. Readability of selected studies written in other languages.
Table 11. Readability of selected studies written in other languages.
IndexStudiesReadability
FrequencyDifficult
Arabic: Flesch Reading Ease11
Arabic: Flesch–Kincaid Level11
Dutch: Flesch Reading Ease11
Croatian: Simple Measure of Gobbledygook11
Total44
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Álvarez, J.M.; García-Sánchez, A. Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review. Clin. Pract. 2025, 15, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15020026

AMA Style

García-Álvarez JM, García-Sánchez A. Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review. Clinics and Practice. 2025; 15(2):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15020026

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Álvarez, José Manuel, and Alfonso García-Sánchez. 2025. "Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review" Clinics and Practice 15, no. 2: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15020026

APA Style

García-Álvarez, J. M., & García-Sánchez, A. (2025). Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review. Clinics and Practice, 15(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15020026

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop