Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25956499›Full record

Observational studyWorld journal of surgery2015

Involving Medical Students in Informed Consent: A Pilot Study.

Costanza Chiapponi, Frank Meyer, Olof Jannasch, Stephan Arndt, Patrick Stübs, Christiane J Bruns

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in World journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Psychotropic Medication Informed Consent: A Cross-Specialty Role-Playing Skill Builder.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Costanza ChiapponiDepartment of General, Abdominal and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany, costanza.chiapponi@med.ovgu.de.
Frank Meyer
Olof Jannasch
Stephan Arndt
Patrick Stübs
Christiane J Bruns
University Hospital Leipzig · DEUniversity Hospital Magdeburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStudies have reported that patients often sign consent documents without understanding the content. Written paperwork, audio-visual materials, and decision aids have shown to consistently improve patients' knowledge. How informed consent should be taken is not properly taught at most universities in Germany. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, we investigated how much information about their procedure our patients retain. In particular, it should be elucidated whether an additional conversation between patients and properly prepared medical students shortly before surgery as an adjunct to informed consent can be introduced as a new teaching unit aimed to increase the understanding of surgery by patients and students. Informed consent of all patients had been previously obtained by three surgical residents 1-3 days in advance. All patients had received a copy of their consent form. The same residents developed assessment forms for thyroidectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, umbilical hernia repair, and Lichtenstein procedure for inguinal hernia, respectively, containing 3-4 major common complications (e.g., bile duct injury, hepatic artery injury, stone spillage, and retained stones for laparoscopic cholecystectomy) and briefed the medical students before seeing the patients. Structured one-to-one interviews between students (n = 9) and patients (n = 55) based on four different assessment forms were performed and recorded by students. Both patients and students were asked to assess the new teaching unit using a short structured questionnaire.

resultsAlthough 100% of patients said at the beginning of their interview to have understood and memorized the risks of their imminent procedure, 5.8% (3/55) were not even able to indicate the correct part of the body where the incision would take place. Only 18.2% (10/55) of the patients were able to mention 2 or more complications, and 45.3% (25/55) could not even recall a single one. 96.4% (53/55) of the patients and 100% (9/9) of the students taking part in this teaching unit found that this exercise represents a significant improvement of clinical teaching and recommended to introduce this teaching unit as a standard on the normal wards. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK: Students teaching patients (SteP) appears to be an easy and cost-efficient tool to improve patients' education and students' learning. Students become aware of how difficult it is to explain surgical procedures and complications to patients and patients are better informed about their treatment. We plan to (i) introduce the STeP protocol as a standard teaching project in daily clinical routine and (ii) continue the pilot study to reach representative student and patient numbers for a possible final statement and derived recommendation.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInformed ConsentStudents, MedicalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHernia, InguinalHernia, UmbilicalHerniorrhaphyHumansInterviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25956499
OpenAlexW1825627714

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.