Informed consent for total knee arthroplasty: exploration of patient`s information acquisition and decision-making processes-a qualitative study.
Decision-making
Information needs
Information provision
Informed consent
Patient participation
Total knee arthroplasty
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2023
11 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
16
11
2022
accepted:
31
08
2023
medline:
13
9
2023
pubmed:
12
9
2023
entrez:
11
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an option for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients have high expectations regarding the benefits of the actual operation. Patients can seek a second opinion on the indication for TKA. In a study, less than half of recommended TKAs were confirmed by the second opinion and conservative treatments are not fully utilized. Informed consent forms that are used in Germany usually do not meet the requirements to support informed decision-making. Our aim was to describe the process from the diagnosis of knee OA through the decision-making process to the informed consent process for TKA, and to understand when, how, and by whom decisions are made. Moreover, we wanted to describe patients' information needs and preferences about knee OA and its treatment, including TKA, and find out what information is provided. We also wanted to find out what information was important for decision-making and identify barriers and facilitators for the optimal use of evidence-based informed consent forms in practice. We chose a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured interviews with patients who were going to receive, have received, or have declined TKA, and with general practitioners (GP), office-based as well as orthopaedists and anaesthesiologists in clinics who obtain informed consent. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis. We conducted interviews with 13 patients, three GPs, four office-based orthopaedists and seven doctors in clinics who had obtained informed consent. Information needs were modelled on subjective disease theory and information conveyed by the doctors. Patients in this sample predominantly made their decisions without having received sufficient information. Trust in doctors and experiences seemed to be more relevant in this sample than fact-based information. Office-based (GPs, orthopaedists) and orthopaedists in clinics had different understandings of their roles and expectations in terms of providing information. We were able to identify structural barriers and assumptions that hinder the implementation of evidence-based informed consent forms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an option for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients have high expectations regarding the benefits of the actual operation. Patients can seek a second opinion on the indication for TKA. In a study, less than half of recommended TKAs were confirmed by the second opinion and conservative treatments are not fully utilized. Informed consent forms that are used in Germany usually do not meet the requirements to support informed decision-making. Our aim was to describe the process from the diagnosis of knee OA through the decision-making process to the informed consent process for TKA, and to understand when, how, and by whom decisions are made. Moreover, we wanted to describe patients' information needs and preferences about knee OA and its treatment, including TKA, and find out what information is provided. We also wanted to find out what information was important for decision-making and identify barriers and facilitators for the optimal use of evidence-based informed consent forms in practice.
METHODS
METHODS
We chose a qualitative approach and conducted semi-structured interviews with patients who were going to receive, have received, or have declined TKA, and with general practitioners (GP), office-based as well as orthopaedists and anaesthesiologists in clinics who obtain informed consent. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We conducted interviews with 13 patients, three GPs, four office-based orthopaedists and seven doctors in clinics who had obtained informed consent. Information needs were modelled on subjective disease theory and information conveyed by the doctors. Patients in this sample predominantly made their decisions without having received sufficient information. Trust in doctors and experiences seemed to be more relevant in this sample than fact-based information. Office-based (GPs, orthopaedists) and orthopaedists in clinics had different understandings of their roles and expectations in terms of providing information.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We were able to identify structural barriers and assumptions that hinder the implementation of evidence-based informed consent forms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37697293
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09993-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09993-5
pmc: PMC10494361
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
978Subventions
Organisme : Gemeinsame Bundesausschuss
ID : 01VSF19025
Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 2020 Feb 05;2(1):100032
pubmed: 36474554
J Clin Nurs. 2007 May;16(5):892-9
pubmed: 17462039
Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(7):600-7
pubmed: 23789746
BMJ Open. 2019 Sep 24;9(9):e031310
pubmed: 31551388
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021 Jun 28;22(1):595
pubmed: 34182959
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Orthopade. 2018 Sep;47(9):777-781
pubmed: 30097685
Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):99-108
pubmed: 11359540
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2016 Mar 31;11:30193
pubmed: 27036130
BMJ. 2010 Oct 14;341:c5146
pubmed: 20947577
Physiother Theory Pract. 2008 May-Jun;24(3):167-81
pubmed: 18569854
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Mar;60(3):301-12
pubmed: 16051459
BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):e000435
pubmed: 22357571
Bone Joint J. 2018 Jun 1;100-B(6):687-692
pubmed: 29855237
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 17;9(12):e031763
pubmed: 31852700
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2021 May 13;7(1):107
pubmed: 33985574
Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Jun;40(3):509-512
pubmed: 29721740
HSS J. 2018 Jul;14(2):192-201
pubmed: 29983663
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 30;9(7):e028957
pubmed: 31366653
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005;5(9):1-51
pubmed: 23074478
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Apr;32(2):312-326
pubmed: 30527434
J Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Jun;16(4):158-63
pubmed: 20414128
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018 Jun 1;115(22):377-383
pubmed: 29932049
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Jul;134(7):925-31
pubmed: 24858373
Can J Surg. 2017 Feb;60(1):69-70
pubmed: 28234594
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085