Literature DB >> 16880192

Patients' perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study.

Andrea Akkad1, Clare Jackson, Sara Kenyon, Mary Dixon-Woods, Nick Taub, Marwan Habiba.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' understanding of the status, function, and remit of written consent to surgery.
DESIGN: Prospective questionnaire study. Questionnaires were sent to patients within one month of surgery. Responses were analysed with frequencies and single variable analyses.
SETTING: Large teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 732 patients who had undergone surgery in obstetrics and gynaecology over a six month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' awareness of the legal implications of written consent and their views on the function and remit of the consent form.
RESULTS: Patients had limited understanding of the legal standing of written consent. Nearly half (46%, 95% confidence interval 43% to 50%) of patients believed the primary function of consent forms was to protect hospitals and 68% (65% to 71%) thought consent forms allowed doctors to assume control. Only 41% (37% to 44%) of patients believed consent forms made their wishes known.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients seem to have limited awareness of the legal implications of signing or not signing consent forms, and they do not recognise written consent as primarily serving their interests. Current consent procedures seem inadequate as a means for the expression of autonomous choice, and their ethical standing and credibility can be called into question.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16880192      PMCID: PMC1562474          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38922.516204.55

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  8 in total

1.  Towards better informed consent in endoscopy: a study of information and consent processes in gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  M K Mayberry; J F Mayberry
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.566

2.  Information about surgery: what does the public want to know?

Authors:  M J Courtney
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 1.872

3.  Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns.

Authors:  R Worthington
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Dutch dental patients on informed consent: knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and behaviour.

Authors:  Barbara Schouten; Johan Hoogstraten; Michiel Eijkman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2002-01

5.  How informed is signed consent?

Authors:  D J Byrne; A Napier; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1988-03-19

Review 6.  Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leaflets.

Authors:  M Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Women's accounts of consenting to surgery: is consent a quality problem?

Authors:  M Habiba; C Jackson; A Akkad; S Kenyon; M Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-12

8.  Informed consent for elective and emergency surgery: questionnaire study.

Authors:  Andrea Akkad; Clare Jackson; Sara Kenyon; Mary Dixon-Woods; Nick Taub; Marwan Habiba
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.531

  8 in total
  27 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Aortic coarctation in the elderly: how many errors lie behind an unexpected diagnosis?

Authors:  L Iuliano; F Micheletta; S Natoli; L Tramaglino; C Greco; P A Modesti
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.397

3.  Managing allegations of research misconduct.

Authors:  Edmund Hey
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Ethical issues in pharmacy practice research: an introductory guide.

Authors:  Peter Loewen
Journal:  Can J Hosp Pharm       Date:  2014-03

5.  Patient perceptions and recall of consent for regional anaesthesia compared with consent for surgery.

Authors:  Roxaneh Zarnegar; Matthew R D Brown; Matthew Henley; Victoria Tidman; Ahilan Pathmanathan
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-10-02       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Patients' view of their preoperative education for radical prostatectomy: does it change after surgery?

Authors:  Johannes Huber; Andreas Ihrig; Wolfgang Herzog; Christian G Huber; Beryl Konyango; Eva Löser; Gencay Hatiboglu; Boris A Hadaschik; Sascha Pahernik; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  Understanding of research: a Sri Lankan perspective.

Authors:  Athula Sumathipala; Sisira Siribaddana; Suwin Hewage; Manura Lekamwattage; Manjula Athukorale; Chesmal Siriwardhana; Kumudu Munasinghe; Kethakie Sumathipala; Joanna Murray; Martin Prince
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Anaesthetists' and surgeons' attitudes towards informed consent in the UK: an observational study.

Authors:  A A B Jamjoom; S White; S M Walton; J G Hardman; I K Moppett
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 9.  A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions.

Authors:  Wouter K G Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Marc R M Scheltinga; Paul H M Spauwen; Gert-Jan van der Wilt
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  What a signature adds to the consent process.

Authors:  Peter Neary; Ronan A Cahill; W O Kirwan; E Kiely; H P Redmond
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.