Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 525

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized?

Cassileth, Barrie R., Zupkis, Robert V., Sutton-Smith, Katherine, March, Vicki·1980·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

We explored reasons for the failure of patients to recall major portions of the information on consent forms and in oral explanations about consent. Within one day of signing consent forms for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery, 200 cancer patients completed a test of their recall of the material in the consent explanation and filled out a questionnaire regarding their opinions of its purpose, content, and implications. Only 60 per cent understood the purpose and nature of the procedure, and only 55 per cent correctly listed even one major risk or complication. We found that three factors were related to inadequate recall: education, medical status, and the care with which patients thought they had read their consent forms before signing. Only 40 per cent of the patients had read the form "carefully." Most believed that consent forms were meant to "protect the physician's rights." Although most thought that consent forms were necessary and comprehensible and that they contained worthwhile information, the legalistic connotations of the forms appeared to lead to cursory reading and inadequate recall.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198004173021605

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 525

Metadata

Authors
Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1980-04-17
Volume
302
Issue
16
Pages
896-900
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2314083496
Cited by
525
References
0
FWCI
31.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm198004173021605
The paper
Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980). Informed Consent — Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized? New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198004173021605

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.