This article is part of the Iris Ethics Knowledge Base; you can find a directory of all articles here.
This page unpacks what participant information and consent forms actually are, what the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2025 requires them to contain, and how to think about proportionality, particularly in lower risk social research, market research, and policy and program evaluation contexts where the risks are modest, but the ethical obligations are unchanged.
We have also published a plain English template that you can download and adapt for your own projects.
What is a participant information and consent form?
A participant information and consent form (often called a PICF) is the primary mechanism through which evaluators and researchers communicate what their project involves and invite potential participants to decide whether they want to take part. Most PICFs combine two distinct elements in a single document: an information section and a consent section.
These two elements have different purposes, and it is worth being clear about the difference.
The information section gives potential participants what they need to make an informed decision. It describes the project, explains what participation involves, sets out any risks or potential benefits, tells people what will happen to their information, and covers the practical details they need to know (who is running the project, how long it will take, what will happen with the results, and how to get in touch with questions or complaints).
The consent section is where participants record their agreement. It typically takes the form of a checklist of statements (confirming they have read and understood the information, that they are participating voluntarily, that they understand their right to withdraw) followed by a signature and date. This section creates a record of the decision the participant made.
Keeping these two elements conceptually distinct matters in practice. The information section should not be crammed with consent declarations, and the consent section should not be where participants are learning things for the first time.
It's also worth noting that not all projects require written consent; in certain scenarios other forms of consent may be more appropriate and proportionate.
What the National Statement requires
The National Statement sets out the requirements for consent in Chapter 2.2. The guiding principle, at paragraph 2.2.1, is that a person's decision to participate in evaluation/research must be voluntary, and based on sufficient information and adequate understanding of both the project and the implications of participation.
Paragraph 2.2.2 is the operational heart of this requirement. Voluntary participation based on sufficient information requires that participants adequately understand the purpose, methods, demands, risks, and potential benefits of the evaluation/research.
Paragraph 2.2.6 then sets out a list of additional matters that should also be communicated. This is where the information sheet earns its length. Participants need to know about their right to withdraw and what happens to their data if they do; how their privacy and confidentiality will be protected; who is funding the project and whether there are any declarations of interest; whether they will receive any payment; how the results will be disseminated; and how to make a complaint through a channel other than the research team. None of these are optional extras. They are the minimum.
Importantly, paragraph 2.2.6 notes that these additional matters (the ones listed in subsections (a) to (m)) should be "kept distinct from the information described in paragraph 2.2.2." In plain terms: the information your participant needs to decide whether to take part should be front and centre, and the administrative detail that supports transparency can follow.
Paragraph 2.2.4 makes an often-overlooked point: the process of communicating information and seeking consent "should not be merely a matter of satisfying a formal requirement." The aim is mutual understanding between evaluators/researchers and participants. That framing has practical implications for how you write participant materials.
Why a good PICF matters even in lower risk projects
A reasonable question at this point is: does all of this really apply to a market research survey about breakfast cereal preferences, or a brief intercept interview for a program evaluation?
The honest answer is yes, though what it looks like in practice will vary considerably.
Ethics committees working with the National Statement do not suspend the consent requirements for lower risk evaluation/research. What changes with lower risk is the proportionality of the response, not whether the response is required. Paragraph 3.1.25 of the National Statement is explicit that "an information and consent document or other consent strategy should be appropriate to the needs of the participants and proportional to the project's risks and ethical sensitivity." The duty to inform and seek consent remains. The form it takes can be simpler.
There are also good practical reasons to take participant information seriously even when a project feels routine. A well-written information sheet reduces the likelihood that participants will feel misled about what their data will be used for, which in turn reduces the risk of complaints or reputational harm after the fact. It also creates a clear record of what participants were told, which matters if questions arise later about data use or publication. For program evaluations that involve service users, clear information about the independence of the evaluation from service provision is also important for ensuring responses are genuinely candid.
What a good participant information and consent form contains
Putting the National Statement requirements together with good practice, a well-constructed PICF for most social research, market research, and evaluation contexts will cover the following:
- Who is running the project, including the lead organisation, a named contact person, and the ethics committee that has approved the project and provided an ethics reference number.
- What the project is about, in plain language, including the purpose and the potential benefits. This is where declarations of interest and funding sources also belong.
- Why this person has been invited, and how many people will be involved overall.
- What participation involves: the method (survey, interview, focus group), the expected time commitment, where and how it will take place, and whether sessions will be recorded.
- Whether participation is voluntary, and what happens if the person withdraws, including whether their data can be removed at a later point or whether de-identification makes that impractical after a certain stage.
- Any risks, described honestly and proportionately. For most social research and evaluation projects, the relevant risks are psychological (for example, a survey touching on sensitive past experiences) rather than physical. Support referrals should be included where the topic warrants them.
- What the benefits are, both direct benefits to the participant (if any) and broader benefits to the field, the community, or the program being evaluated.
- Any payments or incentives.
- How participant information will be handled: whether responses will be identified or de-identified, who will have access, how long data will be retained, and whether data will be shared with a funder or commissioner.
- How findings will be disseminated, and whether participants can access a summary of results.
- Alternatives to participation, where these exist.
- How to ask questions or make a complaint, with a contact for the research/evaluation team and a separate contact for the ethics committee.
The consent section should then confirm each of the key elements in a checklist format, and include fields for the participant's signature and date. Where a consent-by-proxy arrangement is needed (for participants who cannot sign for themselves), a section for an authorised representative should also be included.
Proportionality: not every project needs a four-page form
One of the most common misunderstandings about participant consent is that it always requires a multi-page written document. It does not.
Paragraph 2.2.5 of the National Statement is clear that consent may be expressed verbally, in writing, or by some other means (including, explicitly, return of a survey), depending on the nature, complexity, and risk level of the evaluation/research, and on the participant's personal and cultural circumstances.
This has real practical implications. An online survey can be preceded by an in-line information and consent preamble on the first page. If the participant completes and submits the survey, that submission constitutes their consent. No separate form is required. For intercept interviewing or street-based surveys, oral consent may be appropriate, provided the interviewer gives participants adequate information verbally before they agree to proceed.
What remains constant in all of these approaches is the substance of Paragraph 2.2.2: participants must have adequate understanding of the purpose, methods, demands, risks, and potential benefits of the project before they consent.
Paragraph 3.1.25 reinforces this. Information should not be unnecessarily long or detailed, even for more complex projects. Proportionality means calibrating the format and length of your consent process to the actual risk and sensitivity of the project, not defaulting to a lengthy document because that is what you have always used.
Cultural context also bears on this. For some communities and participant groups, a written consent form may be culturally unfamiliar or may even function as a barrier to participation. Oral consent, witnessed or recorded appropriately, may be both more respectful and more practically accessible. Ethics committees working in line with the National Statement expect evaluators and researchers to think about these questions, not simply attach a form.
A template to get you started
To support evaluators, researchers, and their organisations in meeting these requirements, we have developed a plain English PICF template. It is structured to address each of the requirements in paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.6 of the National Statement, uses clear section headings, and includes instructional notes for the applicant on each section that should be removed before the form is given to participants.
The template is designed for social research, market research, and policy and program evaluation projects in the Australian context. It is flexible enough to be adapted for interview-based or survey-based projects, and includes optional sections for recording consent, incentive arrangements, and authorised representatives.
Download the Iris Ethics PICF template here.
Before using the template, complete all the placeholder fields, delete sections that do not apply to your project, and check the readability of the completed document. A Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 7 to 8 is a sensible target for a general population audience. If your participants include people with lower literacy, you may need a simpler version. Our earlier posts on Plain Language, Easy English, and Easy Read covers this in detail.
If you are not sure whether a written PICF is appropriate for your project, or whether an alternative consent approach (such as in-line survey consent or oral consent) would better suit your method and participant group, contact the Iris Ethics team before you submit your application. Getting the consent strategy right at the design stage saves time and avoids amendments later.
This page was last updated on 10 September 2026.
Was this helpful? We'd appreciate your feedback!
This article draws on the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2025). This article is intended as practical guidance and does not constitute legal advice. If you have questions about whether your project requires ethics review, get in touch.
AI Disclosure: Resources in this library were prepared using Large Language Models with input from Iris Ethics staff who guided the scope and design. Subsequent revisions and final versions were developed and approved by Iris Ethics staff.