Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38063894›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Digital consent in gynecology: an evaluation of patient experience.

Laura Burney Ellis, Jennifer Barcroft, Edward St John, Dafydd Loughran, Maria Kyrgiou, David Phelps

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Laura Burney EllisImperial College London, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, IRDB, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK. lauraellis@doctors.org.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-0639-785X
Jennifer BarcroftImperial College London, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, IRDB, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
Edward St JohnPortsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Cosham, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.
Dafydd LoughranConcentric Health, Tramshed Tech, Cardiff, CF11 6BH, UK.
Maria KyrgiouImperial College London, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, IRDB, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.
David PhelpsImperial College London, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, IRDB, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe surgical consent process is a crucial discussion between patient and surgeon, which is predominantly documented utilizing hand-written forms. The exchange of individualized information allows the patient to make a truly informed decision. Digital consent (also known as electronic consent or e-consent) has been shown to improve accuracy of information provided without increasing the time taken to consent patients. We aimed to evaluate patient experience and effectiveness of digital consent in a gynecology department in a tertiary London Teaching Hospital.

methodsA questionnaire was designed and completed by 100 patients undergoing gynecological surgery: 50 consented using paper and 50 consented digitally. The questionnaire included 8 statements, with five possible answers to select, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, on a standard five-point Likert Scale. Patients were all female and categorized into age groups (deciles) and asked whether consent was taken digitally or on paper. Data were collected between January and July 2021.

resultsMost responses were positive with 87% (694/800) of responses to the questions being either strongly agree or agree. Patients who were consented using paper selected 'strongly agree' 43.5% (174/400) of the time in comparison to 64.8% (259/400) of the time when they were consented digitally. The majority, 86% (43/50), of digitally consented patients received a copy of the consent form in comparison to 18% (9/50) of those consented using paper. On average, the patients consented digitally were older than their paper-consented counterparts (49-58 and 59-68 respectively). The mean scores for the questions relating to the ease of reading the form, ease of understanding the form, understanding of the potential complications, and overall satisfaction were higher in those digitally consented (p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Overall, patients were satisfied with both methods of consent. However, individuals who were consented digitally reported higher levels of satisfaction throughout the consent process, compared to paper consent. These data suggest that digital consent is an acceptable alternative to paper consent for patients and facilitates adherence to national consent guidance, which stipulates patients should be given the information they request.

Indexed as

GynecologyFemaleHospitals, TeachingHumansInformed ConsentPatient Outcome AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesDigital consente-ConsentElectronic consentPatient experience

Identifiers

PMID38063894
PMCPMC10808288

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.