Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form

被引:40
|
作者
Sivanadarajah, N. [1 ]
El-Daly, I. [2 ]
Mamarelis, G. [3 ]
Sohail, M. Z. [3 ]
Bates, P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Natl Orthopaed Hosp NHS Trust, Stanmore, Middx, England
[2] Barts Hlth NHS Trust, London, England
[3] Princess Alexandra Hosp NHS Trust, Harlow, Essex, England
关键词
Informed consent; Ethics; Orthopaedics; Readability; PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS; HEALTH LITERACY; ORTHOPEDICS; DOCUMENTS; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1308/rcsann.2017.0188
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to objectively ascertain the level of readability of standardised consent forms for orthopaedic procedures. METHODS Standardised consent forms (both in summary and detailed formats) endorsed by the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were retrieved from orthoconsent.com and assessed for readability. This involved using an online tool to calculate the validated Flesch reading ease score (FRES). This was compared with the FRES for the National Health Service (NHS) Consent Form 1. Data were analysed and interpreted according to the FRES grading table. RESULTS The FRES for Consent Form 1 was 55.6, relating to the literacy expected of an A level student. The mean FRES for the BOA summary consent forms (n=27) was 63.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.2-66.0) while for the detailed consent forms (n=32), it was 68.9 (95% CI: 67.7-70.0). All BOA detailed forms scored >60, correlating to the literacy expected of a 13-15-year-old. The detailed forms had a higher FRES than the summary forms (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the BOA endorsed standardised consent forms are much easier to read and understand than the NHS Consent Form 1, with the detailed BOA forms being the easiest to read. Despite this, owing to varying literacy levels, a significant proportion of patients may struggle to give informed consent based on the written information provided to them.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:645 / 649
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] USE, CONTENT, AND READABILITY OF WRITTEN INFORMED CONSENT FORMS FOR TREATMENT
    HANDELSMAN, MM
    KEMPER, MB
    KESSONCRAIG, P
    MCLAIN, J
    JOHNSRUD, C
    PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 1986, 17 (06) : 514 - 518
  • [2] CONSENT, INFORMED CONSENT AND CONSENT FORM
    VACCARINO, JM
    NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1978, 298 (08): : 455 - 455
  • [3] EFFECTS OF READABILITY ON THE IMPACT AND RECALL OF WRITTEN INFORMED CONSENT MATERIAL
    HANDELSMAN, MM
    MARTIN, WL
    PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 1992, 23 (06) : 500 - 503
  • [4] Readability of informed consent forms
    Casajus Perez, Gloria
    Manas Segura, Angeles
    Guardia Mila, Nuria
    ENFERMERIA CLINICA, 2005, 15 (01): : 3 - 7
  • [5] READABILITY OF INFORMED CONSENT FORMS
    MURGATROYD, RJ
    COOPER, RM
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL PHARMACY, 1991, 48 (12): : 2651 - 2652
  • [6] Evaluation of the written informed consent form in clinical trials
    Marrero-Alvarez, P.
    Ruiz-Ramos, J.
    Megias-Vericat, J. E.
    Tordera-Baviera, M.
    Poveda-Andres, J. L.
    REVISTA DE CALIDAD ASISTENCIAL, 2013, 28 (03) : 139 - 144
  • [7] An Analysis of Informed Consent Form Readability of Oncology Research Protocols
    Munley, Benjamin
    Buser, Amy T.
    Gaudreau, Stephanie
    Breault, Joseph L.
    Bazzano, Lydia A.
    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2018, 13 (04) : 363 - 367
  • [8] Informed consent in medical research - In routine practice the consent form is a request form and informed consent is informed choice
    Frosh, AC
    Hanif, J
    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 314 (7092): : 1482 - 1483
  • [9] THE READABILITY OF CONSENT DOCUMENTS FOR RESEARCH SUBJECTS - A BARRIER TO INFORMED CONSENT
    HAMMERSCHMIDT, DE
    KEANE, M
    CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1990, 38 (02): : A452 - A452
  • [10] Is written informed consent outdated?
    Tasse, Anne Marie
    Kirby, Emily
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2017, 27 (02): : 195 - 196