Literature DB >> 31948345

Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures: An Updated Systematic Review.

Johanna Glaser1, Sarah Nouri2, Alicia Fernandez3,4, Rebecca L Sudore5,6, Dean Schillinger3,4, Michele Klein-Fedyshin7, Yael Schenker8.   

Abstract

Background. Patient comprehension is fundamental to valid informed consent. Current practices often result in inadequate patient comprehension. Purpose. An updated review to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Sources. Systematic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2008-2018). Study Selection. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Extraction. Reviewers independently abstracted data using a standardized form, comparing all results and resolving disagreements by consensus. Data Synthesis. Fifty-two studies of 60 interventions met inclusion criteria. Compared with standard informed consent, a statistically significant improvement in patient comprehension was seen with 43% (6/14) of written interventions, 56% (15/27) of audiovisual interventions, 67% (2/3) of multicomponent interventions, 85% (11/13) of interactive digital interventions, and 100% (3/3) of verbal discussion with test/feedback or teach-back interventions. Eighty-five percent of studies (44/52) evaluated patients' understanding of risks, 69% (41/52) general knowledge about the procedure, 35% (18/52) understanding of benefits, and 31% (16/52) understanding of alternatives. Participants' education level was reported heterogeneously, and only 8% (4/52) of studies examined effects according to health literacy. Most studies (79%, 41/52) did not specify participants' race/ethnicity. Limitations. Variation in interventions and outcome measures precluded conduct of a meta-analysis or calculation of mean effect size. Control group processes were variable and inconsistently characterized. Nearly half of studies (44%, 23/52) had a high risk of bias for the patient comprehension outcome. Conclusions. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent are heterogeneous. Interactive interventions, particularly with test/feedback or teach-back components, appear superior. Future research should emphasize all key elements of informed consent and explore effects among vulnerable populations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  comprehension; informed consent; interpersonal communication; intervention; understanding

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31948345      PMCID: PMC7079202          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19896348

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


  75 in total

1.  Informed consent for cataract surgery: patient understanding of verbal, written, and videotaped information.

Authors:  Anita N Shukla; Mary K Daly; Paul Legutko
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2011-11-06       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 2.  What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?

Authors:  Nelson Cowan
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.453

3.  A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient-Centered Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid (VADDA Trial).

Authors:  Kristin M Kostick; Courtenay R Bruce; Charles G Minard; Robert J Volk; Andrew Civitello; Selim R Krim; Douglas Horstmanshof; Vinay Thohan; Matthias Loebe; Mazen Hanna; Brian A Bruckner; J S Blumenthal Barby; Jerry D Estep
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 5.712

4.  Informed consent in trauma: does written information improve patient recall of risks? A prospective randomised study.

Authors:  Hannah K Smith; Joseph G Manjaly; Taher Yousri; Neil Upadhyay; Hazel Taylor; Stephen G Nicol; James A Livingstone
Journal:  Injury       Date:  2011-07-22       Impact factor: 2.586

5.  Multimedia in the informed consent process for endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomized control trial.

Authors:  Jennifer M Siu; Brian W Rotenberg; Jason H Franklin; Leigh J Sowerby
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures.

Authors:  Mayer Brezis; Sarah Israel; Avital Weinstein-Birenshtock; Pnina Pogoda; Ayelet Sharon; Renana Tauber
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2008-07-14       Impact factor: 2.038

7.  Effect of a multimedia-assisted informed consent procedure on the information gain, satisfaction, and anxiety of cataract surgery patients.

Authors:  Saskia M Tipotsch-Maca; Ralph M Varsits; Christian Ginzel; Pia V Vecsei-Marlovits
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Patient-physician communication: informed consent for imaging-guided spinal injections.

Authors:  D Lee Bennett; Chiraag V Dharia; Kristi J Ferguson; Anietie E Okon
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Evaluating the quality of informed consent and contemporary clinical practices by medical doctors in South Africa: an empirical study.

Authors:  Sylvester C Chima
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 2.652

10.  Use of a simplified consent form to facilitate patient understanding of informed consent for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Alessandro Borello; Alessia Ferrarese; Roberto Passera; Alessandra Surace; Silvia Marola; Claudio Buccelli; Massimo Niola; Pierpaolo Di Lorenzo; Maurizio Amato; Lorenza Di Domenico; Mario Solej; Valter Martino
Journal:  Open Med (Wars)       Date:  2016-12-16
View more
  17 in total

1.  Effect of a three-dimensional (3D) printed kidney model on patient understanding of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Young Hyo Choi; Seung-Ju Lee; Hee Youn Kim
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8.

Authors:  E Coleman; A E Radix; W P Bouman; G R Brown; A L C de Vries; M B Deutsch; R Ettner; L Fraser; M Goodman; J Green; A B Hancock; T W Johnson; D H Karasic; G A Knudson; S F Leibowitz; H F L Meyer-Bahlburg; S J Monstrey; J Motmans; L Nahata; T O Nieder; S L Reisner; C Richards; L S Schechter; V Tangpricha; A C Tishelman; M A A Van Trotsenburg; S Winter; K Ducheny; N J Adams; T M Adrián; L R Allen; D Azul; H Bagga; K Başar; D S Bathory; J J Belinky; D R Berg; J U Berli; R O Bluebond-Langner; M-B Bouman; M L Bowers; P J Brassard; J Byrne; L Capitán; C J Cargill; J M Carswell; S C Chang; G Chelvakumar; T Corneil; K B Dalke; G De Cuypere; E de Vries; M Den Heijer; A H Devor; C Dhejne; A D'Marco; E K Edmiston; L Edwards-Leeper; R Ehrbar; D Ehrensaft; J Eisfeld; E Elaut; L Erickson-Schroth; J L Feldman; A D Fisher; M M Garcia; L Gijs; S E Green; B P Hall; T L D Hardy; M S Irwig; L A Jacobs; A C Janssen; K Johnson; D T Klink; B P C Kreukels; L E Kuper; E J Kvach; M A Malouf; R Massey; T Mazur; C McLachlan; S D Morrison; S W Mosser; P M Neira; U Nygren; J M Oates; J Obedin-Maliver; G Pagkalos; J Patton; N Phanuphak; K Rachlin; T Reed; G N Rider; J Ristori; S Robbins-Cherry; S A Roberts; K A Rodriguez-Wallberg; S M Rosenthal; K Sabir; J D Safer; A I Scheim; L J Seal; T J Sehoole; K Spencer; C St Amand; T D Steensma; J F Strang; G B Taylor; K Tilleman; G G T'Sjoen; L N Vala; N M Van Mello; J F Veale; J A Vencill; B Vincent; L M Wesp; M A West; J Arcelus
Journal:  Int J Transgend Health       Date:  2022-09-06

Review 3.  Towards a more patient-centered clinical trial process: A systematic review of interventions incorporating health literacy best practices.

Authors:  Mehnaz Bader; Linda Zheng; Deepika Rao; Olayinka Shiyanbola; Laurie Myers; Terry Davis; Catina O'Leary; Michael McKee; Michael Wolf; Annlouise R Assaf
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 2.261

4.  Development, piloting, and evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): a protocol for a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Alina Weise; Julia Lühnen; Stefanie Bühn; Felicia Steffen; Sandro Zacher; Julia Lauberger; Deha Murat Ates; Andreas Böhmer; Henning Rosenau; Anke Steckelberg; Tim Mathes
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2021-05-13

5.  Not the Last Word: Informed Consent, Omakase Style.

Authors:  Joseph Bernstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 6.  Utilizing the "teach-back" method to improve surgical informed consent and shared decision-making: a review.

Authors:  Kevin D Seely; Jordan A Higgs; Andrew Nigh
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2022-03-05

Review 7.  Informed consent in inflammatory bowel disease: a necessity in real-world clinical practice.

Authors:  Nikolaos Kyriakos; Apostolis Papaefthymiou; Marios Giakoumis; George Iatropoulos; Gerasimos Mantzaris; Christos Liatsos
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-06-03

8.  Ethical Issues in Intraoperative Neuroscience Research: Assessing Subjects' Recall of Informed Consent and Motivations for Participation.

Authors:  Anna Wexler; Rebekah J Choi; Ashwin G Ramayya; Nikhil Sharma; Brendan J McShane; Love Y Buch; Melanie P Donley-Fletcher; Joshua I Gold; Gordon H Baltuch; Sara Goering; Eran Klein
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2021-07-06

Review 9.  Ethics for surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic, review article.

Authors:  Denis W Harkin
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2020-06-08

10.  Diagnosing Diabetic Retinopathy With Artificial Intelligence: What Information Should Be Included to Ensure Ethical Informed Consent?

Authors:  Frank Ursin; Cristian Timmermann; Marcin Orzechowski; Florian Steger
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-07-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.