The patient and clinician experience of informed consent for surgery: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence.
Adults
Informed consent
Qualitative synthesis
Surgery
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 07 2020
11 07 2020
Historique:
received:
08
04
2019
accepted:
05
07
2020
entrez:
13
7
2020
pubmed:
13
7
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Informed consent is an integral component of good medical practice. Many researchers have investigated measures to improve the quality of informed consent, but it is not clear which techniques work best and why. To address this problem, we propose developing a core outcome set (COS) to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery in adult patients with capacity. Part of this process involves reviewing existing research that has reported what is important to patients and doctors in the informed consent process. This qualitative synthesis comprises four phases: identification of published papers and determining their relevance; appraisal of the quality of the papers; identification and summary of the key findings from each paper while determining the definitiveness of each finding against the primary data; comparison of key themes between papers such that findings are linked across studies. Searches of bibliographic databases returned 11,073 titles. Of these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 1996 and 2016 and included a total of 367 patients and 74 health care providers. Thirteen studies collected data using in-depth interviews and constant comparison was the most common means of qualitative analysis. A total of 94 findings were extracted from the primary papers and divided into 17 categories and ultimately 6 synthesised findings related to: patient characteristics, knowledge, communication, the model patient, trust and decision making. This qualitative meta-aggregation is the first to examine the issue of informed consent for surgery. It has revealed several outcomes deemed important to capture by patients and clinicians when evaluating the quality of a consent process. Some of these outcomes have not been examined previously in research comparing methods for informed consent. This review is an important step in the development of a COS to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery. The study protocol was registered on the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017077101).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Informed consent is an integral component of good medical practice. Many researchers have investigated measures to improve the quality of informed consent, but it is not clear which techniques work best and why. To address this problem, we propose developing a core outcome set (COS) to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery in adult patients with capacity. Part of this process involves reviewing existing research that has reported what is important to patients and doctors in the informed consent process.
METHODS
This qualitative synthesis comprises four phases: identification of published papers and determining their relevance; appraisal of the quality of the papers; identification and summary of the key findings from each paper while determining the definitiveness of each finding against the primary data; comparison of key themes between papers such that findings are linked across studies.
RESULTS
Searches of bibliographic databases returned 11,073 titles. Of these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 1996 and 2016 and included a total of 367 patients and 74 health care providers. Thirteen studies collected data using in-depth interviews and constant comparison was the most common means of qualitative analysis. A total of 94 findings were extracted from the primary papers and divided into 17 categories and ultimately 6 synthesised findings related to: patient characteristics, knowledge, communication, the model patient, trust and decision making.
CONCLUSIONS
This qualitative meta-aggregation is the first to examine the issue of informed consent for surgery. It has revealed several outcomes deemed important to capture by patients and clinicians when evaluating the quality of a consent process. Some of these outcomes have not been examined previously in research comparing methods for informed consent. This review is an important step in the development of a COS to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery.
REGISTRATION
The study protocol was registered on the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017077101).
Identifiants
pubmed: 32653008
doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00501-6
pii: 10.1186/s12910-020-00501-6
pmc: PMC7353438
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0901530
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
J Vasc Surg. 2008 Aug;48(2):296-302
pubmed: 18572357
Int J Qual Health Care. 1996 Jun;8(3):253-64
pubmed: 8885189
J Fam Pract. 1998 Sep;47(3):213-20
pubmed: 9752374
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Apr 26;18(1):29
pubmed: 28446164
Heart. 2009 Aug;95(15):1245-9
pubmed: 19406735
J Med Libr Assoc. 2002 Jul;90(3):290-3
pubmed: 12113512
BMC Cancer. 2016 Mar 31;16:258
pubmed: 27036216
Eval Health Prof. 2011 Sep;34(3):297-308
pubmed: 21224267
Am J Surg. 2012 Nov;204(5):619-25
pubmed: 22944389
Health Expect. 2002 Dec;5(4):302-9
pubmed: 12460219
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Dec;13(6):422-7
pubmed: 15576703
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
Health Info Libr J. 2010 Jun;27(2):114-22
pubmed: 20565552
JAMA. 1998 Nov 18;280(19):1708-14
pubmed: 9832007
Res Nurs Health. 1997 Aug;20(4):365-71
pubmed: 9256882
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Jun;62(11):2742-53
pubmed: 16343723
World J Surg. 2009 Jul;33(7):1341-7
pubmed: 19381720
Can J Neurol Sci. 2014 Jan;41(1):66-73
pubmed: 24384340
Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Jul-Sep;9(3):180-6
pubmed: 22864078
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000 Aug;120(2):264-9
pubmed: 10917940
Health Expect. 2016 Jun;19(3):751-61
pubmed: 25212709
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 06;(7):CD009445
pubmed: 23832767
Trials. 2015 Oct 27;16:484
pubmed: 26507504
Psychol Rep. 1990 Dec;67(3 Pt 2):1091-100
pubmed: 2084735
Trials. 2018 Nov 6;19(1):609
pubmed: 30400995
J Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Jun;16(4):158-63
pubmed: 20414128
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):179-87
pubmed: 26262565
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Jul;199(1):51-7
pubmed: 15217630
J Urban Health. 2001 Mar;78(1):59-71
pubmed: 11368203
Plast Surg Nurs. 2010 Apr-Jun;30(2):70-4; quiz 75-6
pubmed: 20543636
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085