Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent.

Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, Bartenfeld D, Nyirenda C, Webb A, Berger DH, Itani K, Whitehill T, Edwards J, Wilson M, Karsonovich C, Parmelee P. Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2010 Jun 1; 210(6):919-26.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IAF 05-308 – Benefits of 'Repeat Back' Protocols within A Computer-Based Informed Consent Program

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Patient comprehension during surgical informed consent remains problematic. Using data from our randomized trial of methods to improve informed consent comprehension, we performed an additional analysis to define independent factors associated with improved patient understanding. STUDY DESIGN: Patients scheduled for 1 of 4 elective operations (total hip arthroplasty [n = 137], carotid endarterectomy [n = 178], laparoscopic cholecystectomy [n = 179], or radical prostatectomy [n = 81]) at 7 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers were enrolled. All informed consent discussions were performed using iMedConsent (Dialog Medical), the VA's computerized informed consent platform. Using a unique module within iMedConsent, we randomized patients to repeat back (RB), requiring correct reiteration of procedure-specific facts, or standard (STD) iMedConsent. Patient comprehension was tested after the informed consent discussion using procedure-specific questionnaires. Time spent completing the informed consent process was measured using time stamps within iMedConsent. Multiple linear regression identified factors independently associated with improved comprehension. RESULTS: We enrolled 575 patients (276 RB, 299 standard); 93% were male, 74% were Caucasian, and 89% had at least a high school education. Independent factors associated with improved comprehension included race (p < 0.01), ethnicity (p < 0.05), age (p < 0.02), operation type (p < 0.01), group assignment (+/- RB; p < 0.05), and total consent time (p < 0.0001). Patient comprehension was maximized when informed consent took between 15 and 30 minutes. RB's positive impact on patient comprehension was weaker in the analysis including consent time. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehension during informed consent discussions may be limited in individuals with potential language difficulty due to ethnicity or education. Total consent time was the strongest predictor of patient comprehension. Affording adequate time for informed consent discussions and using informed consent adjuncts such as RB may enhance comprehension in such individuals.