IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v21y2001i2p141-149.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Risk and Benefit Perception in Informed Consent for Surgery

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Lloyd

    (Faculty of Medicine, Leicester University)

  • Paul Hayes

    (Faculty of Medicine, Leicester University)

  • Peter R. F. Bell

    (Faculty of Medicine, Leicester University)

  • A. Ross Naylor

    (Faculty of Medicine, Leicester University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Lloyd & Paul Hayes & Peter R. F. Bell & A. Ross Naylor, 2001. "The Role of Risk and Benefit Perception in Informed Consent for Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 141-149, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:141-149
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100207
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X0102100207
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X0102100207?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521478786.
    2. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1995. "Evaluating Health Risks," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521472852.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2017. "One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1157-1169, June.
    2. Lily N. Stalter & Nathan D. Baggett & Bret M. Hanlon & Anne Buffington & Elle L. Kalbfell & Amy B. Zelenski & Robert M. Arnold & Justin T. Clapp & Margaret L. Schwarze, 2023. "Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 487-497, May.
    3. Reynolds, William W. & Nelson, Robert M., 2007. "Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2105-2115, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2003. "Construction of the contingent valuation market in health care:a critical assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(8), pages 609-628, August.
    3. Blomquist, Glenn C. & Coomes, Paul A. & Jepsen, Christopher & Koford, Brandon C. & Troske, Kenneth R., 2014. "Estimating the social value of higher education: willingness to pay for community and technical colleges," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 3-41, January.
    4. Lamiraud, Karine & von Bremen, Konrade & Donaldson, Cam, 2009. "The impact of information on patient preferences in different delivery patterns: A contingent valuation study of prescription versus OTC drugs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 102-110, December.
    5. Gerdtham, Ulf-G & Johannesson, Magnus, 2001. "The relationship between happiness, health, and socio-economic factors: results based on Swedish microdata," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 553-557.
    6. Juan Oliva & Félix Lobo & Julio López-Bastida & Néboa Zozaya & Rosa Romay, 2005. "Indirect costs of cervical and breast cancers in Spain," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(4), pages 309-313, December.
    7. Mohammed Seid & Amare Minyihun & Gizachew Tilahun & Asmamaw Atnafu & Getasew Amare, 2021. "Willingness to pay for cataract surgery and associated factors among cataract patients in Outreach Site, North West Ethiopia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, March.
    8. Johannesson, Magnus & Johansson, Per-Olov & Soderqvist, Tore, 1998. "Time spent on waiting lists for medical care: an insurance approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 627-644, October.
    9. Hugh Gravelle & Dave Smith, 2001. "Discounting for health effects in cost–benefit and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 587-599, October.
    10. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    11. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    12. Johansson, Per-Olov, 1997. "On the use of market prices to evaluate medical treatments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 609-615, October.
    13. Olivier Chanel & Pascale Scapecchi & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2006. "How to correctly assess mortality benefits in public policies," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 759-776.
    14. Richard D. Smith, 2007. "The role of 'reference goods' in contingent valuation: should we help respondents to 'construct' their willingness to pay?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1319-1332.
    15. Jeroen C. J. M. van den Bergh & Kenneth J. Button, 1997. "Meta-analysis of Environmental Issues in Regional, Urban and Transport Economics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 34(5-6), pages 927-944, May.
    16. Bleichrodt, Han & Crainich, David & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 2003. "Comorbidities and the willingness to pay for health improvements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(11), pages 2399-2406, October.
    17. Gregory Ponthiere, 2008. "A Study of the Sensitivity of Longevity-adjusted Income Measures," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 339-361.
    18. Bernard van denBerg & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel & Marc Koopmanschap, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 169-183, February.
    19. Kimberly M. Thompson, 2002. "Data Requirements for Valuation of Children’s Health Effects and Alternatives to Valuation," NCEE Working Paper Series 200206, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Sep 2002.
    20. Sadique, Z. & Edmunds, W. J. & Devlin, N. & Parkin, D., 2005. "Understanding individuals’ decisions about vaccination: a comparison between Expected Utility and Regret Theory models," Working Papers 05/03, Department of Economics, City University London.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:21:y:2001:i:2:p:141-149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.