| Literature DB >> 28191495 |
Debra M Yeh1, Stanford Chun1, Laura Terrones1, Jeannie S Huang2.
Abstract
Background and study aims Youth undergoing pediatric endoscopic procedures and their parents demonstrate suboptimal comprehension of the informed consent (IC) process. We developed informational videos discussing key IC elements for pediatric endoscopy and evaluated their effects on youth and parental comprehension of the IC process. Patients and methods A randomized controlled trial of the video intervention was performed among youth undergoing endoscopy and their parents at an academic children's hospital. Randomization occurred at the time of enrollment using permutated blocks. Following the IC process with the proceduralist, subjects underwent structured interviews to assess IC comprehension. An Informed Consent Overall Score (ICOS: range 0 - 4) for comprehension was calculated. Results Seventy-seven pairs of children and their parents participated. Intervention recipients (N = 37 pairs) demonstrated higher ICOS scores as compared to control counterparts (mean (standard deviation): 3.6 (0.7) v. 2.9 (0.9), intervention v. control parents, P < 0.0001 and 2.7 (1.1) v. 1.7 (1.1), intervention v. control youth, P < 0.0001). Conclusions A media intervention addressing key elements of the IC process for pediatric endoscopy was effective in improving comprehension of IC for youth undergoing endoscopic procedures and their parents.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28191495 PMCID: PMC5292876 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-121668
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Calculation of overall informed consent comprehension (Informed Consent Overall Score (ICOS), nature of procedure, and risks of the procedure.
| Informed Consent Overall Score (ICOS): Range 0 – 4 | |
| Component of understanding | Points awarded if understood |
| Nature of procedure (understood [if scored at least 3 points | 1 |
| Risks of procedure (understood [if listed at least 2 risks | 1 |
| Benefits of procedure (understood: not understood) | 1 |
| Alternatives to procedure (understood: not understood) | 1 |
|
|
|
ICOS = nature of procedure + risks of procedure + benefits of procedure + alternatives to procedure.
Refer to Table 1b.
Subjects need only list one of the benefits to the procedure to qualify for understood.
Subjects need only list one of the alternatives of the procedure to qualify for understood.
Calculation of nature of procedure and risks of procedure subscores.
| Nature of procedure: Range 0 – 4 | |
| Element of understanding | Points awarded if understood |
| That a scope/camera/instrument would be used (understood: not understood) | 1 |
| That biopsies would be taken (understood: not understood) | 1 |
| That pictures would be taken (understood: not understood) | 1 |
| Identification of at least one location in the gastrointestinal tract that the scope would examine (e. g., stomach for upper endoscopy and large intestine for colonoscopy) | 1 |
|
|
|
Comprehension scores by study group.
| Comprehension score (range) | Intervention group | Control group |
|
| Overall comprehension score (0 – 4) | Parent (P): 3.6 (0.7)-----Youth (Y): 2.7 (1.1) | P: 2.9 (0.9)-----Y: 1.7 (1.1) | < 0.0001----- < 0.0001 |
| Nature of procedure (0 – 4) | P: 3 (0.9)-----Y: 2.9 (1.1) | P: 3 (0.7)-----Y: 2.4 (0.9) | 0.6-----0.02 |
| Benefits of procedure (0 – 1) | P: 1 (0)-----Y: 0.8 (0.4) | P: 1 (0.2)-----Y: 0.8 (0.4) | 0.16-----0.77 |
| Risks of procedures (0 – 3) | P: 2.8 (0.5)-----Y: 2.5 (0.8) | P: 1.2 (1.0)-----Y: 0.6 (0.9) | < 0.0001----- < 0.0001 |
| Alternatives to procedure (0 – 1) | P: 0.7 (0.5)-----Y: 0.2 (0.4) | P: 0.4 (0.5)-----Y: 0.2 (0.4) | < 0.004-----0.16 |
Results expressed as mean (standard deviation). Youth = Child (7 – 12 years) and Adolescent (13 – 17 years).
Multivariate model of informed comprehension scores (ICOS) in youth subjects [ICOS is the dependent outcome].
| Independent variable | Estimate | Standard error |
|
| Intervention group (relative to control) | + 0.59 | 0.11 | < 0.0001 |
| Adolescent 13 – 17 years (relative to child 7 – 12 years) | + 0.56 | 0.11 | < 0.0001 |
| Prior procedure in youth (Yes relative to No) | + 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.07 |
Complete informed consent comprehension percentages by study and age group.
| Informed consent element | Intervention group | Control group |
|
| Nature of procedure (Subscore = 4) | Parent (P): 97 %--------------Youth (Y): 86 %
| P: 98 %--------------Y: 55 %
| 1---------0.003 |
| Benefits of procedure | P: 100 %--------------Y: 76 %
| P: 98 %--------------Y: 83 %
| 1----------0.58 |
| Risks of procedures (Subscore = 3) | P: 92 %--------------Y: 84 %
| P: 48 %--------------Y: 15 %
| < 0.0001----------- < 0.0001 |
| Alternatives to procedure | P: 72 %--------------Y: 24 %
| P: 43 %--------------Y: 15 %
| 0.01---------0.39 |
| Complete informed consent comprehension | P: 69 %--------------Y: 22 %
| P: 25 %--------------Y: 8 %
| 0.0002---------0.11 |
Percentages presented reflect the % of the study group that completely understood the informed consent element. Youth = Child (7 – 12 years) and Adolescent (13 – 17 years).
Complete informed consent comprehension meant that the participant understood all key IC elements (nature of the procedure, benefits of the procedure, risks of the procedure, AND alternatives to the procedure).
Multivariate model of Informed Comprehension Score (ICOS) in parent subjects.
| Independent variable | Estimate | Standard error | P value |
| Intervention group (relative to control) | + 0.37 | 0.09 | < 0.0001 |
| Prior procedure in youth (Yes relative to No) | -0.06 | 0.09 | 0.51 |
| Prior procedure in parent (Yes relative to No) | -0.11 | 0.10 | 0.28 |
| Risks of procedure: Range 0 – 3 | |
| Element of understanding | Points awarded if Understood |
| Bleeding | 1 |
| Infection | 1 |
| Intestinal perforation | 1 |
|
|
|