| Literature DB >> 30487117 |
Azizeh K Sowan1, Arlienita R Beraya2, Adrian Carrola2, Charles Reed2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed consent is a complex process to help patients engage in care processes and reach the best treatment decisions. There are many limitations to the conventional consent process that is based on oral discussion of information related to treatment procedures by the health care provider. A conclusive body of research supports the effectiveness of multimedia patient decision aids (PtDAs) in the consent process in terms of patient satisfaction, increased knowledge about the procedure, reduced anxiety level, and higher engagement in the decision making. Little information is available about the effectiveness of multimedia PtDAs in the consent process of invasive therapeutic procedures such as the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC).Entities:
Keywords: central venous catheters; decision support techniques; informed consent; intensive care units; multimedia
Year: 2018 PMID: 30487117 PMCID: PMC6291677 DOI: 10.2196/11056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Med Inform
Patient characteristics (N=128).
| Characteristic | Control group (n=65) | Intervention group (n=63) | ||
| <30 | 11 (17) | 5 (8) | ||
| 30-50 | 22 (34) | 22 (35) | ||
| 51-65 | 18 (28) | 23 (37) | ||
| >65 | 14 (22) | 13 (21) | ||
| Male, n (%) | 28 (43) | 34 (54) | .20 | |
| Hispanic | 30 (46) | 25 (40) | ||
| White non-Hispanic | 30 (46) | 33 (52) | ||
| Others | 5 (8) | 5 (8) | ||
| Illiterate | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | ||
| Primary education to less than high school | 4 (6) | 7 (11) | ||
| High school | 38 (58) | 40 (63) | ||
| College or bachelor | 21 (32) | 11 (17) | ||
| Graduate | 1 (2) | 4 (6) | ||
| Spanish | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | ||
| English | 64 (98) | 62 (98) | ||
aThe 3 groups used to perform the chi-square test were high school, college or bachelor, and others. The “others” included all other groups under the level of education because of the small sample size under those categories.
bThe chi-square test was not performed because of the obvious lack of significance between the categories related to similar frequencies under each category and the small cell size under Spanish.
cN/A: not applicable.
Figure 1Mean difference of correctly answered questions in knowledge recall and retention surveys (19 questions) for the control (n=65 patients) and intervention (n=63 patients) groups.
Satisfaction with the multimedia decision aid program for the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) for the intervention group (n=63 patients).
| Item | Mean (SD) |
| 1. The video better helped me remember the information about this procedure | 4.9 (0.2) |
| 2. The video allows me to listen to information when I am ready to do so | 4.8 (0.5) |
| 3. After watching the video, I completely understand the common complications of this procedure and know when to report them | 4.8 (0.4) |
| 4. After watching the video, I understand my role as a patient in maintaining the safety of the PICC line | 4.8 (0.5) |
| 5. The information in the video was comprehensive to include the following: Reasons for PICC Steps of the procedure Common side effects Other treatment options Definition of PICC Patient role in care and safety of PICC Provider role in care and safety of PICC | 4.7 (0.6) |
| 6. There was almost no disruption during watching the video | 4.7 (0.8) |
| 7. Visual aids (eg, showing the PICC line) in the video were helpful | 4.7 (0.6) |
| 8. The video was very beneficial to learn about the procedure | 4.7 (0.6) |
| 9. The video allows me to listen to information as many times as I need | 4.7 (0.7) |
| 10. The information in the video was clear | 4.6 (0.7) |
| 11. The information in the video was easy to understand | 4.6 (0.8) |
| 12. Speed of presenting the information in the video was reasonable | 4.6 (0.8) |
| 13. I highly recommend this video to supplement the consent process for PICC | 4.6 (0.8) |
| 14. I feel the video decreased my level of anxiety | 4.6 (1.0) |
Patient satisfaction with the informed consent process (N=128).
| Item | Mean (SD) | |
| Control group (n=65) | Intervention group (n=63) | |
| 1. Provider attitude during the discussion was positive | 5 (0) | 4.9 (0.1) |
| 2. Speed of information provided was reasonable | 4.9 (0.4) | 4.9 (0.1) |
| 3. Disruption during the discussion was minimal | 4.8 (0.5) | 4.8 (0.6) |
| 4. I completely understand the common complications of this procedure and know when to report them | 4.8 (0.5) | 4.9 (0.4) |
| 5. The information provided by the nurse was clear | 4.7 (0.3) | 4.9 (0.3) |
| 6. The information provided was easy to understand | 4.7 (0.9) | 4.8 (0.4) |
| 7. Timing of the discussion was convenient | 4.7 (0.6) | 4.9 (0.4) |
| 8. I understand my role as a patient in maintaining the safety of the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) | 4.6 (1) | 4.9 (0.4) |
| 9. The nurse answered all of my questions sufficiently | 4.6 (0.7) | 4.9 (0.3) |
| 10. The information provided was comprehensive to include the following: Definition of the PICC Reasons for the PICC Steps of the procedure Common side effects Other treatment options Patient role in care and safety of the PICC Provider role in care and safety of the PICC | 4.5 (0.8) | N/Aa |
aN/A: not applicable.