ArticleRegional anesthesia and pain medicine
Real-Time Captioning for Improving Informed Consent: Patient and Physician Benefits.
Article in Regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Role of Medical Caption Technology to Support Physician-Patient Communication for Patients With Hearing Loss: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Communication Experiences of Patients With Hearing Loss During Hemodialysis Treatment and the Potential Role of Communication Tools: A Qualitative Study.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2026Article
- Health Literacy and Clear Communication Best Practices for Telemedicine.Health literacy research and practice · 2020Article
- BMI and specimen weight: impact on personalized risk profiling for optimized informed consent in breast reduction surgery?Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesNew methods are needed to improve physicians' skill in communicating information and to enhance patients' ability to recall that information. We evaluated a real-time speech-to-text captioning system that simultaneously provided a speech-to-text record for both patient and anesthesiologist. The goals of the study were to assess hearing-impaired patients' recall of an informed consent discussion about regional anesthesia using real-time captioning and to determine whether the physicians found the system useful for monitoring their own performance.
methodsWe recorded 2 simulated informed consent encounters with hearing-impaired older adults, in which physicians described regional anesthetic procedures. The conversations were conducted with and without real-time captioning. Subsequently, the patient participants, who wore their hearing aids throughout, were tested on the material presented, and video recordings of the encounters were analyzed to determine how effectively physicians communicated with and without the captioning system.
resultsThe anesthesiology residents provided similar information to the patient participants regardless of whether the real-time captioning system was used. Although the patients retained relatively few details regardless of the informed consent discussion, they could recall significantly more of the key points when provided with real-time captioning.
conclusionsReal-time speech-to-text captioning improved recall in hearing-impaired patients and proved useful for determining the information provided during an informed consent encounter. Real-time speech-to-text captioning could provide a method for assessing physicians' communication that could be used both for self-assessment and as an evaluative approach to training communication skills in practice settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.