ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Do patients actually understand? An evaluation of the informed consent process for endoscopic procedures in rural Uganda.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Virtual Reality-Assisted Informed Consent for Anesthesia: A Prospective and Randomized Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImproving surgical access in low- and middle-income countries is vital for the 5 billion people who lack safe surgical care. Tailoring a culturally sensitive approach to consent is essential for patient comprehension and comfort, thereby alleviating the effects of resource constraints and advancing equitable care. This study examines the consenting process for endoscopy at Kyabirwa Surgical Center in Kyabirwa, Jinja, Uganda, to assess patients' knowledge and attitudes as a potential barrier to participating in endoscopic procedures.
methodsAll adult upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy patients were recruited to participate in a survey of their demographics, knowledge, and attitudes toward their procedure. All patients received a standard consultation explaining the procedure and its risks and benefits.
results75 patients were included; median age was 54 years and 56% (n = 42) were women. 92% (n = 69) of patients had never had an endoscopy before and 73% (n = 55) of patients were scheduled for an EGD while the remaining 27% (n = 20) were scheduled for a colonoscopy. Most patients 80% (n = 60) had a basic understanding of what an endoscopy is and 87% (n = 65) its diagnostic purpose. Few patients 15% (n = 11) knew of the most common side effects or if they would have a surgical scar 27% (n = 20). Overall, 46.7% (n = 35) of patients were moderately or severely fearful of getting an endoscopy. Additionally, 45.3% (n = 34) of patients were moderately or severely fearful of receiving anesthesia during their endoscopic procedure. Despite this fear, most patients 85.3% (n = 64) stated that they understood the benefits of the procedure either very well or extremely well.
conclusionsMost patients understood the role that an endoscopic procedure plays in their care and its potential benefits. Despite this, many patients continued to have high levels of fear associated with both the endoscopic procedure and with receiving anesthesia during their procedure. Future patient education should focus on addressing patients' fears and the risks of undergoing an endoscopy, which may improve the utilization of surgical services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38877318What 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.