ArticleBMJ open2019
Informed consent, shared-decision making and a reasonable patient's wishes based on a cross-sectional, national survey in the USA using a hypothetical scenario.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Saving Shared Decision-Making.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Knowledge of and Attitudes Towards Standard Care in Patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Informed consent for total knee arthroplasty: exploration of patient`s information acquisition and decision-making processes-a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Patient-provider communication while using a clinical decision support tool: explaining satisfaction with shared decision making for mammography screening.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Perinatal Education Participation: Description and Identification of Disparities.The Journal of perinatal education · 2022Article
- Informed Consent for Endoscopic Biliary Drainage: Time for a New Paradigm.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Abandon Informed Consent in Favor of Probability-Based, Shared Decision-Making Following the Wishes of a Reasonable Person.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- Development, piloting, and evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): a protocol for a mixed methods study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2021Article
- Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Parent/Carer-Reported Experience of Shared Decision Making at Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: A Multilevel Modelling Approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn approximately half the states in the USA, and more recently in the UK, informed consent is legally defined as what a reasonable patient would wish to know. Our objective was to discern the information needs of a hospitalised, 'reasonable patient' during the informed-consent process.
designWe performed a cross-sectional study to develop a survey instrument and better define 'reasonable person' in relation to informed consent in a hypothetical scenario where an invasive procedure may be an option.
settingA 10-question survey was administered from April 19 through 22 October 2018 to three groups: student nurses (n=76), health professions educators (n=63) and a US national population (n=1067). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the average intensity, on a 5-point scale, by which survey groups wished to have each of 10 questions answered. The secondary outcome was to discern relationships between survey demographics and the intensity by which participants wanted an answer.
resultsDespite substantial demographic differences in the nursing-student group and health-professions-educator group, the average intensity scores were within 0.2 units on nine of 10 questions. The national survey revealed a strong desire to have an answer to each question (range 3.98-4.60 units). It showed that women desired answers more than men and older adults desired answers more than younger adults.
conclusionsBased on responses to 10 survey questions regarding wishes of people in a situation where an invasive procedure may be necessary, the vast majority want an answer to each question. They wanted to know about all treatment options, risky drugs, decision aids, who will perform the procedure, and the cost. They wanted their advocate present, periodic review of their medical record, a full day to review documents and expected outcomes and restrictions after the procedure.
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.