Single-source data entry in the clinical care context for use in the clinical research context - a process enabled through the use of the EHR as single point of data entry, can - if demonstrated to be a viable strategy - not only significantly reduce data collection efforts while simultaneously increasing data collection accuracy secondary to elimination of transcription or double-entry errors between the two contexts but also ensure that all the clinical data for a given patient, irrespective of the data collection context, are available in the EHR for decision support and treatment planning. The RE-USE approach used mapping algorithms to identify semantic coherence between clinical care and clinical research data elements and pre-populate eCRFs. The RE-USE project utilized SNOMED International v.3.5 as its "pivot reference terminology" to support EHR-to-eCRF mapping, a decision that likely enhanced the "recall" of the mapping algorithms. The RE-USE results demonstrate the difficult challenges involved in semantic integration between the clinical care and clinical research contexts.

BackgroundQuantitative tools have been developed to evaluate the readability of written documents and have been used in several studies to evaluate information and consent forms. These studies all showed that such documents had a low level of readability. Our objective is to evaluate the readability of Information and Consent Forms (ICFs) used in clinical research.Methods and FindingsClinical research protocols were collected from four public clinical research centers in France. Readability was evaluated based on three criteria: the presence of an illustration, the length of the text and its Flesch score. Potential effects of protocol characteristics on the length and readability of the ICFs were determined. Medical and statutory parts of the ICF form were analyzed separately. The readability of these documents was compared with that of everyday contracts, press articles, literary extracts and political speeches. We included 209 protocols and the corresponding 275 ICFs. The median length was 1304 words. Their Flesch readability scores were low (median: 24), and only about half that of selected press articles. ICF s for industrially sponsored and randomized protocols were the longest and had the highest readability scores. More than half (52%) of the text in ICFs concerned medical information, and this information was statistically (p<0.05) more readable (Flesch: 28) than statutory information (Flesch: 21).ConclusionRegardless of the field of research, the ICFs for protocols included had poor readability scores. However, a prospective analysis of this test in French should be carried out before it is put into general use.