The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures: An Updated Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
Background. Patient comprehension is fundamental to valid informed consent. Current practices often result in inadequate patient comprehension. Purpose. An updated review to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Sources. Systematic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2008–2018). Study Selection. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Extraction. Reviewers independently abstracted data using a standardized form, comparing all results and resolving disagreements by consensus. Data Synthesis. Fifty-two studies of 60 interventions met inclusion criteria. Compared with standard informed consent, a statistically significant improvement in patient comprehension was seen with 43% (6/14) of written interventions, 56% (15/27) of audiovisual interventions, 67% (2/3) of multicomponent interventions, 85% (11/13) of interactive digital interventions, and 100% (3/3) of verbal discussion with test/feedback or teach-back interventions. Eighty-five percent of studies (44/52) evaluated patients’ understanding of risks, 69% (41/52) general knowledge about the procedure, 35% (18/52) understanding of benefits, and 31% (16/52) understanding of alternatives. Participants’ education level was reported heterogeneously, and only 8% (4/52) of studies examined effects according to health literacy. Most studies (79%, 41/52) did not specify participants’ race/ethnicity. Limitations. Variation in interventions and outcome measures precluded conduct of a meta-analysis or calculation of mean effect size. Control group processes were variable and inconsistently characterized. Nearly half of studies (44%, 23/52) had a high risk of bias for the patient comprehension outcome. Conclusions. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent are heterogeneous. Interactive interventions, particularly with test/feedback or teach-back components, appear superior. Future research should emphasize all key elements of informed consent and explore effects among vulnerable populations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses
IOANNIDIS, J. P. A. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12210 · Cited by 1,483
Spatz, E. S., Krumholz, H. M., & Moulton, B. W. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.3070 · Cited by 236
Patients’ recollection and understanding of informed consent: a literature review
Sherlock, A., & Brownie, S. (2014) · ANZ Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1111/ans.12555 · Cited by 191
Masaki, S., Ishimoto, H., & Asai, A. (2014) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-8 · Cited by 34
Cited by
Ursin, F., Timmermann, C., Orzechowski, M., & Steger, F. (2021) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.695217 · Cited by 32
Rosansky, J. A., Howard, L., Goodman, H., Okst, K., Fatkin, T., Fredericksen, A. K., Sokol, R., Gardiner, P., Parry, G., Cook, B. L., et al. (2024) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2023.107417 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Glaser, J., Nouri, S., Fernandez, A., Sudore, R. L., Schillinger, D., Klein-Fedyshin, M., & Schenker, Y.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-01-16
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 119-143
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W4230874191
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.