IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v31y2011i1p151-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Yael Schenker
  • Alicia Fernandez
  • Rebecca Sudore
  • Dean Schillinger

Abstract

Background . Patient understanding in clinical informed consent is often poor. Little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to improve comprehension or the extent to which such interventions address different elements of understanding in informed consent. Purpose . To systematically review communication interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures. Data Sources . A systematic literature search of English-language articles in MEDLINE (1949–2008) and EMBASE (1974–2008) was performed. In addition, a published bibliography of empirical research on informed consent and the reference lists of all eligible studies were reviewed. Study Selection . Randomized controlled trials and controlled trials with nonrandom allocation were included if they compared comprehension in informed consent for a medical or surgical procedure. Only studies that used a quantitative, objective measure of understanding were included. All studies addressed informed consent for a needed or recommended procedure in actual patients. Data Extraction . Reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized form. All results were compared, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data Synthesis . Forty-four studies were eligible. Intervention categories included written information, audiovisual/multimedia, extended discussions, and test/feedback techniques. The majority of studies assessed patient understanding of procedural risks; other elements included benefits, alternatives, and general knowledge about the procedure. Only 6 of 44 studies assessed all 4 elements of understanding. Interventions were generally effective in improving patient comprehension, especially regarding risks and general knowledge. Limitations . Many studies failed to include adequate description of the study population, and outcome measures varied widely. Conclusions . A wide range of communication interventions improve comprehension in clinical informed consent. Decisions to enhance informed consent should consider the importance of different elements of understanding, beyond procedural risks, as well as feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to clinicians and patients. Conceptual clarity regarding the key elements of informed consent knowledge will help to focus improvements and standardize evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yael Schenker & Alicia Fernandez & Rebecca Sudore & Dean Schillinger, 2011. "Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 151-173, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:151-173
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10364247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10364247
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10364247?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    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:31:y:2011:i:1:p:151-173. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.