SynthesisPloS one2021
Adequacy of measures of informed consent in medical practice: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Large language models for surgical informed consent: an ethical perspective on simulated empathy.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Anesthesia technology students' perspectives on multidisciplinary preoperative education: Implications for interprofessional training.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Implementing and evaluating visual key information pages compared to text-based key information: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Primary palliative care in acute care surgery: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee and Palliative Care Committee clinical consensus document.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Article
- Psychometric validation of the informed consent assessment scale using item response theory and factor analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment of decision-making autonomy in chronic pain patients: a pilot study.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Valid consent in the acute hospital setting: perspectives of patients and members of the public.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Dentists' perspectives, practices, and factors associated with informed consent process for fixed prosthodontic treatment: a cross-sectional study of kampala metropolitan area, Uganda.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Adequacy of Informed Consent in Elective Surgical Procedures: A Study in a Navi Mumbai Tertiary Care Centre.Cureus · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As a critical component of medical practice, it is alarming that patient informed consent does not always reflect (1) adequate information provision, (2) comprehension of provided information, and (3) a voluntary decision. Consequences of poor informed consent include low patient satisfaction, compromised treatment adherence, and litigation against medical practitioners. To ensure a well-informed, well-comprehended, and voluntary consent process, the objective and replicable measurement of these domains via psychometrically sound self-report measures is critical. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of existing measures in terms of the extent to which they assess the three domains of informed consent, are psychometrically sound and acceptable for use by patients. Extensive searching of multiple databases (PsychINFO, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts, CINAHL, AMED) yielded 10,000 potential studies, with 16 relevant scales identified. No existing scale was found to measure all three consent domains, with most only narrowly assessing aspects of any one domain. Information provision was the most frequently assessed domain, followed by comprehension, and then voluntariness. None of the identified scales were found to have adequate evidence for either high quality psychometric properties or patient user acceptability. No existing scale is fit for purpose in comprehensively assessing all domains of informed consent. In the absence of any existing measure meeting the necessary criteria relating to information, comprehension and voluntariness, there is an urgent need for a new measure of medical consent to be developed that is psychometrically sound, spans all three domains and is acceptable to patients and clinicians alike. These findings provide the impetus and justification for the redesign of the informed consent process, with the aim to provide a robust, reliable and replicable process that will in turn improve the quality of the patient experience and care provided.
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.