• 1
    Agrawal M, Emanuel EJ. Ethics of Phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA. 2003; 290: 10751082.
  • 2
    Annas GJ. Informed consent, cancer, and truth in prognosis. N Engl J Med. 1994; 331: 810812.
  • 3
    Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982; 5: 319329.
  • 4
    Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987; 17: 2024.
  • 5
    Bergler JH, Pennington AC, Metcalfe M, Freis ED. Informed consent: how much does the patient understand? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980; 27: 435440.
  • 6
    Chan EC, Sulmasy DP. What should men know about prostate-specific antigen screening before giving informed consent? Am J Med. 1998; 105: 266274.
  • 7
    Chan EC, Vernon SW, O'Donnell FT, Ahn C, Greisinger A, Aga DW. Informed consent for cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: How well are men getting the message? Am J Public Health. 2003; 93: 779785.
  • 8
    Comprehensive Working Group on Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials for the National Cancer Institute. Recommendations for the development of informed consent documents for cancer clinical trials. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute, 1998.
  • 9
    Horng S, Emanuel EJ, Wilfond B, Rackoff J, Martz K, Grady C. Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for Phase 1 oncology trials. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 21342140.
  • 10
    Tomamichel M, Sessa C, Herzig S, et al. Informed consent for Phase I studies: evaluation of quantity and quality of information provided to patients. Ann Oncol. 1995; 6: 363369.
  • 11
    Yuval R, Halon DA, Merdler A, et al. Patient comprehension and reaction to participating in a double-blind randomized clinical trial (ISIS-4) in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 11421146.
  • 12
    Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 3744.
  • 13
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127: 966972.
  • 14
    Weinfurt KP, Castel LD, Li Y, et al. The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials. Cancer. 2003; 98: 166175.
  • 15
    Cheng JD, Hitt J, Koczwara B, et al. Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding Phase I clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 421428.
  • 16
    Meropol NM, Weinfurt KP, Burnett CB, et al. Perceptions of patients and providers regarding Phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 25892596.
  • 17
    Schwarz N, Sudman S. Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1996.
  • 18
    Hacking I. The emergence of probability: a philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction, and statistical inference. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
  • 19
    Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1997; 277: 14851492.
  • 20
    Euroqol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy. 1990; 16: 199208.
  • 21
    Ganz PA, Lee JJ, Siau J. Quality of life assessment. An independent prognostic variable for survival in lung cancer. Cancer. 1991; 67: 31313135.
  • 22
    Gaskin DJ, Kong J, Meropol NJ, Yabroff KR, Weaver C, Schulman KA. Treatment choices by seriously ill patients: the Health Stock Risk Adjustment model. Med Decis Making. 1998; 18: 8494.
  • 23
    O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 2530.
  • 24
    Stiggelbout AM, Kiebert GM, Kievit J, Leer JW, Stoter G, de Haes JC. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 8290.
  • 25
    Verhoef LC, de Haan AF, van Daal WA. Risk attitude in gambles with years of life: empirical support for prospect theory. Med Decis Making. 1994; 14: 194200.
  • 26
    Von Neuman J, Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947.
  • 27
    Ware J Jr., Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996; 34: 220233.
  • 28
    Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.
  • 29
    Ware J Jr., Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1995.
  • 30
    Schafer JL. Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1997.
  • 31
    Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 42994305.
  • 32
    Weinfurt KP, Sulmasy DP, Schulman KA, Meropol NJ. Patient expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials: linguistic considerations in diagnosing a therapeutic misconception. Theor Med Bioethics. 2003; 24: 329344.
  • 33
    Weinfurt KP. Discursive versus information-processing perspectives on a bioethical problem: the case of ‘unrealistic’ patient expectations. Theor Psychol. 2004; 14: 191203.
  • 34
    Weinfurt K. Outcomes research related to patient decision making in oncology. Clin Ther. 2003; 25: 671683.