Literature DB >> 11310947

The role of risk and benefit perception in informed consent for surgery.

A Lloyd1, P Hayes, P R Bell, A R Naylor.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Informed consent relies on patients' ability to understand risk information. Evidence suggests that people may extract the gist of any risk information to make medical decisions. Existing evidence also suggests that there is an inverse relationship between the perception of risk and the perception of benefit.
METHOD: Seventy-one patients on the waiting list for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) were surveyed regarding their understanding and recall of the risk and benefit to health of undergoing CEA. Patients were surveyed 1 month after their initial consultation, and a subgroup was surveyed again on the day before their operation.
RESULTS: Patients' estimates of their baseline risk of stroke without surgery were significantly different from what they had been told by the surgeon. Patients' estimates of stroke risk due to surgery ranged from 0% to 65% (actual local risk 2%). Patients also had unreasonable expectations about the benefit of the operation for their health. Estimates of stroke risk correlated positively with the degree of expected benefit from the operation (r = 0.29, P = 0.05). When resurveyed the day before the operation, patients' perceptions of both risk and benefit had increased significantly. The risk perception data from some patients appeared to contradict some of the predictions of the fuzzy-trace theory.
CONCLUSIONS: Most patients failed to understand the risks and benefits associated with CEA. Some patients' estimates of stroke risk were actually greater than the perceived potential benefit of surgery in terms of risk reduction. The data also suggested a positive correlation between the degree of perceived benefit and the degree of perceived risk.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11310947     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100207

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  27 in total

1.  Strategies to help patients understand risks.

Authors:  John Paling
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

Review 2.  Normal variants of competence to consent to treatment.

Authors:  Abraham Rudnick; David Roe
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-06

3.  Andrew lloyd: a driving force in patient-centered outcomes research.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Christopher I Carswell
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  Informed consent for clinical treatment.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Allan V Prochazka; Aaron S Fink
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Addressing risks to advance mental health research.

Authors:  Ana S Iltis; Sahana Misra; Laura B Dunn; Gregory K Brown; Amy Campbell; Sarah A Earll; Anne Glowinski; Whitney B Hadley; Ronald Pies; James M Dubois
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 21.596

6.  Opportunities to Improve Informed Consent with AHRQ Training Modules.

Authors:  Sarah J Shoemaker; Cindy Brach; Alrick Edwards; Salome O Chitavi; Rene Thomas; Melanie Wasserman
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2018-05-03

7.  Disclosure and rationality: comparative risk information and decision-making about prevention.

Authors:  Peter H Schwartz
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2009

8.  Medicine as performance: what can magicians teach doctors?

Authors:  Daniel K Sokol
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Decisions to operate: the ASA grade 5 dilemma.

Authors:  J Horwood; S Ratnam; A Maw
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.891

10.  Effect of format on comprehension of adherence data in chronic disease: A cross-sectional study in HIV.

Authors:  Anita Lyons; Warren B Bilker; Janet Hines; Robert Gross
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-08-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.