Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30616673›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

Does written informed consent adequately inform surgical patients? A cross sectional study.

Erminia Agozzino, Sharon Borrelli, Mariagrazia Cancellieri, Fabiola Michela Carfora, Teresa Di Lorenzo, Francesco Attena

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. IsAI & society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Erminia AgozzinoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Campania University L. Vanvitelli, Section of Hygiene Via L. Armanni 5, 80138, Naples, Italy. erminia.agozzino@unicampania.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7306-2526
Sharon BorrelliDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Campania University L. Vanvitelli, Section of Hygiene Via L. Armanni 5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Mariagrazia CancellieriDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Campania University L. Vanvitelli, Section of Hygiene Via L. Armanni 5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Fabiola Michela CarforaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Campania University L. Vanvitelli, Section of Hygiene Via L. Armanni 5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Teresa Di LorenzoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Campania University L. Vanvitelli, Section of Hygiene Via L. Armanni 5, 80138, Naples, Italy.
Francesco AttenaDepartment of Experimental Medicine, Campania University L. Vanvitelli, Section of Hygiene Via L. Armanni 5, 80138, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformed consent (IC) is an essential step in helping patients be aware of consequences of their treatment decisions. With surgery, it is vitally important for patients to understand the risks and benefits of the procedure and decide accordingly. We explored whether a written IC form was provided to patients; whether they read and signed it; whether they communicated orally with the physician; whether these communications influenced patient decisions.

methodsAdult postsurgical patients in nine general hospitals of Italy's Campania Region were interviewed via a structured questionnaire between the second and seventh day after the surgery at the end of the first surgical follow up visit. Physicians who were independent from the surgical team administered the questionnaire.

resultsThe written IC form was given to 84.5% of those interviewed. All recipients of the form signed it, either personally or through a delegate; however, 13.9% did not know/remember having done so; 51.8% said that they read it thoroughly. Of those who reported to have read it, 90.9% judged it to be clear. Of those receiving the written consent form, 52.0% had gotten it the day before the surgery at the earliest 41.1% received it some hours or immediately before the procedure. The written IC form was explained to 65.6% of the patients, and 93.9% of them received further oral information that deemed understandable. Most attention was given to the diagnosis and the type of surgical procedure, which was communicated respectively to 92.8 and 88.2% of the patients. Almost one in two patients believed that the information provided some emotional relief, while 23.2% experienced increased anxiety. Younger patients (age ≤ 60) and patients with higher levels of education were more likely to read the written IC form.

conclusionsThe written IC form is not sufficient in assuring patients and making them fully aware of choices they made for their health; pre-operative information that was delivered orally better served the patients' needs. To improve the quality of communication we suggest enhancing physicians' communication skills and for them to use structured conversation to ensure that individuals are completely informed before undergoing their procedures.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHospitals, GeneralAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInformed ConsentItalyMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesHospitalInformed consentItalyMedical ethicsSurgery

Identifiers

PMID30616673
PMCPMC6323683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.