Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process: Improved data retention with stagnant comprehension

Pranitha Naini, James Lewis, Kothanur Rajanna, Alva Weir

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our study explored whether a simple, cost-effective intervention directed only at physicians could improve patient comprehension with informed consent process. In our medical university oncology clinic, we performed a baseline survey on 69 patients receiving new therapy, testing for comprehension of the important components of the informed consent process. We then instituted a three-part intervention, including (1) physician education, (2) an available toxicity list, and (3) a checklist to ensure physician compliance. We repeated the survey on 54 consecutive patients who consented for treatment, evaluating four outcomes. The intervention produced a 38% improvement in patients' listing of toxicities (p = 0.0003) and no significant improvements in the understanding of therapeutic goals, likelihood of achieving those goals, and confidence in their understanding of treatment. Our three-part intervention, directed solely at physicians, improved patients' recall of toxicity data but did not influence the other important areas of patient comprehension within the informed consent process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-42
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Cancer Education
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2013

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Physicians
Medical Oncology
Therapeutics
Checklist
Compliance
Education
Costs and Cost Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process : Improved data retention with stagnant comprehension. / Naini, Pranitha; Lewis, James; Rajanna, Kothanur; Weir, Alva.

In: Journal of Cancer Education, Vol. 28, No. 1, 01.03.2013, p. 38-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8d9e33f0e5c741ce90e3ac58e8b916e6,
title = "Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process: Improved data retention with stagnant comprehension",
abstract = "Our study explored whether a simple, cost-effective intervention directed only at physicians could improve patient comprehension with informed consent process. In our medical university oncology clinic, we performed a baseline survey on 69 patients receiving new therapy, testing for comprehension of the important components of the informed consent process. We then instituted a three-part intervention, including (1) physician education, (2) an available toxicity list, and (3) a checklist to ensure physician compliance. We repeated the survey on 54 consecutive patients who consented for treatment, evaluating four outcomes. The intervention produced a 38{\%} improvement in patients' listing of toxicities (p = 0.0003) and no significant improvements in the understanding of therapeutic goals, likelihood of achieving those goals, and confidence in their understanding of treatment. Our three-part intervention, directed solely at physicians, improved patients' recall of toxicity data but did not influence the other important areas of patient comprehension within the informed consent process.",
author = "Pranitha Naini and James Lewis and Kothanur Rajanna and Alva Weir",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s13187-013-0453-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "38--42",
journal = "Journal of Cancer Education",
issn = "0885-8195",
publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of a method to improve the consent process

T2 - Improved data retention with stagnant comprehension

AU - Naini, Pranitha

AU - Lewis, James

AU - Rajanna, Kothanur

AU - Weir, Alva

PY - 2013/3/1

Y1 - 2013/3/1

N2 - Our study explored whether a simple, cost-effective intervention directed only at physicians could improve patient comprehension with informed consent process. In our medical university oncology clinic, we performed a baseline survey on 69 patients receiving new therapy, testing for comprehension of the important components of the informed consent process. We then instituted a three-part intervention, including (1) physician education, (2) an available toxicity list, and (3) a checklist to ensure physician compliance. We repeated the survey on 54 consecutive patients who consented for treatment, evaluating four outcomes. The intervention produced a 38% improvement in patients' listing of toxicities (p = 0.0003) and no significant improvements in the understanding of therapeutic goals, likelihood of achieving those goals, and confidence in their understanding of treatment. Our three-part intervention, directed solely at physicians, improved patients' recall of toxicity data but did not influence the other important areas of patient comprehension within the informed consent process.

AB - Our study explored whether a simple, cost-effective intervention directed only at physicians could improve patient comprehension with informed consent process. In our medical university oncology clinic, we performed a baseline survey on 69 patients receiving new therapy, testing for comprehension of the important components of the informed consent process. We then instituted a three-part intervention, including (1) physician education, (2) an available toxicity list, and (3) a checklist to ensure physician compliance. We repeated the survey on 54 consecutive patients who consented for treatment, evaluating four outcomes. The intervention produced a 38% improvement in patients' listing of toxicities (p = 0.0003) and no significant improvements in the understanding of therapeutic goals, likelihood of achieving those goals, and confidence in their understanding of treatment. Our three-part intervention, directed solely at physicians, improved patients' recall of toxicity data but did not influence the other important areas of patient comprehension within the informed consent process.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875683270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875683270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13187-013-0453-5

DO - 10.1007/s13187-013-0453-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 23371059

AN - SCOPUS:84875683270

VL - 28

SP - 38

EP - 42

JO - Journal of Cancer Education

JF - Journal of Cancer Education

SN - 0885-8195

IS - 1

ER -