ArticleIrish journal of medical science2024
Valid consent in the acute hospital setting: perspectives of patients and members of the public.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Valid consent in the acute hospital setting: perspectives of nursing and medical professionals from a survey-based study.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- What Is Truly Informed Consent in Medical Practice and What Has the Perception of Risk Got to Do with It?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople who interact with healthcare services have an ethical and legal right to control their own lives, to make informed decisions, and to consent to what happens to them. For consent to be considered ethically and legally valid, three key criteria must be met: consent must be given voluntarily; people must be sufficiently informed of all options; and people should have capacity to make the decision to give or withhold their consent.
aimThis study set out to explore, through the use of surveys, the perspectives of patients and public in relation to consent.
methodSurveys were developed for patients and the public and administered paper based (patients) and through social media (public).
resultsOne hundred and forty surveys were posted to patients, with a 38% response rate; 104 responses were received from the public. Ninety-six percent of patients were satisfied that the decision they made was informed; 100% felt they had made a voluntary decision; 98% felt the clinician seemed knowledgeable about the procedure. What matters most to the public were being informed about the risks associated with the proposed procedure and being assured that whatever choice they make they will receive the best care possible.
conclusionsThe results highlight interesting similarities and differences in relation to consent between members of the public thinking about a possible treatment, surgery, or procedure and those patients who have actually been through the process in the past 12 months. Recommendations have been developed on the basis of these findings to co-design improvements in consent practices.
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.