Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25212709›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2016

Doctors' perspectives of informed consent for non-emergency surgical procedures: a qualitative interview study.

Fiona Wood, Sean Michael Martin, Andrew Carson-Stevens, Glyn Elwyn, Elizabeth Precious, Paul Kinnersley

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. IsAI & society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How informed is the informed consent?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fiona WoodCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Sean Michael MartinCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Andrew Carson-StevensCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Glyn ElwynThe Dartmouth Centre for Health Care Delivery Science, Dartmouth, NH, USA.
Elizabeth PreciousCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Paul KinnersleyCochrane Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need to involve patients more in decisions about their care, the ethical imperative and concerns about ligation and complaints has highlighted the issue of informed consent and how it is obtained. In order for a patient to make an informed decision about their treatment, they need appropriate discussion of the risks and benefits of the treatment.

objectivesTo explore doctors' perspectives of gaining informed consent for routine surgical procedures.

designQualitative study using semi-structured interviews selected by purposive sampling. Data were analysed thematically. SETTING AND

participantsTwenty doctors in two teaching hospitals in the UK.

resultsDoctors described that while consent could be taken over a series of consultations, it was common for consent to be taken immediately prior to surgery. Juniors were often taking consent when they were unfamiliar with the procedure. Doctors used a range of communication techniques to inform patients about the procedure and its risks including quantifying risks, personalizing risk, simplification of language and use of drawings. Barriers to effective consent taking were reported to be shortage of time, clinician inexperience and patients' reluctance to be involved. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionCurrent consent processes do not appear to be ideal for many doctors. In particular, junior doctors are often not confident taking consent for surgical procedures and require more support to undertake this task. This might include written information for junior staff, observation by senior colleagues when undertaking the task and ward-based communication skills teaching on consent taking.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansRiskSurgeonsUnited Kingdomhealth care professionalsinformed consentqualitative researchrisk communicationsurgery

Identifiers

PMID25212709
PMCPMC5055244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.