Consent forms continue to be at a higher reading level than the recommended sixth to eighth grade, making it difficult for participants to comprehend information before enrolling in research. To assess and address the extent of the problem regarding the level of literacy of consent forms and update previously published reports, we conducted an integrative literature review of English language research published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013; 35 descriptive and eight intervention studies met inclusion criteria. Results confirmed that developing forms at eighth-grade level was attainable though not practiced. It was found that risks of participation was the section most poorly understood. There was also a lack of consensus regarding the most effective method to increase comprehension. Further research using standardized tools is needed to determine the best approach for improving consent forms and processes.

In 100 Institutional Review Board approved consent forms (CFs), we assessed pages, reading levels, and whether they included essential elements. CF page numbers ranged from 3 to 28 (mean, 10.3) and readability ranged from grades 5.6 to 28.9 (mean, 11.6). The CF mean score for including essential elements was 90.8% (range: 63.5-100%). There were no signifi cant differences by specialty in number of pages ( p = 0.053), but surgical specialties had the highest readability (mean, 13.1), and pediatrics the lowest (10.5), p = 0.008. While approved CFs generally included the Offi ce for Human Research Protections recommended essential elements, they were very long, and even pediatric forms, which had the lowest reading levels, were written on average at a tenth grade level. Researchers need guidance to resolve pressure between regulatory mandates and guidelines and "keeping it simple and clear. " Clin Trans Sci 2015; Volume 8: 355-356

Ethical dilemmas in critical care may cause healthcare practitioners to experience moral distress: incoherence between what one believes to be best and what occurs. Given that paediatric decision-making typically involves parents, we propose that parents can also experience moral distress when faced with making value-laden decisions in the neonatal intensive care unit. We propose a new concept-that parents may experience "moral schism"-a genuine uncertainty regarding a value-based decision that is accompanied by emotional distress. Schism, unlike moral distress, is not caused by barriers to making and executing a decision that is deemed to be best by the decision-makers but rather an encounter of significant internal struggle. We explore factors that appear to contribute to both moral distress and "moral schism" for parents: the degree of available support, a sense of coherence of the situation, and a sense of responsibility. We propose that moral schism is an underappreciated concept that needs to be explicated and may be more prevalent than moral distress when exploring decision-making experiences for parents. We also suggest actions of healthcare providers that may help minimize parental "moral schism" and moral distress.

Parents of infants with life-limiting conditions perceive that their babies experience comfort as a result of the care provided by the standardized Neonatal Comfort Care Program.

No abstract