Schwartz Peter H, Edenberg Elizabeth, Barrett Patrick R, Perkins Susan M, Meslin Eric M, Imperiale Thomas F
Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46220, USA.
Fam Med. 2013 Feb;45(2):83-9.
While several tests and strategies are recommended for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, studies suggest that primary care providers often recommend colonoscopy without providing information about its risks or alternatives. These observations raise concerns about the quality of informed consent for screening colonoscopy.
We conducted a telephone survey (August 2008 to September 2009) of a convenience sample of 98 patients scheduled for a screening colonoscopy to assess their understanding of the procedure's benefits, risks, and alternatives and their sources of information.
Fully 90.8% of subjects described the purpose of screening colonoscopy in at least general terms. Just 48.0% described at least one risk of the procedure. Only 24.5% named at least one approved alternative test. Just 3.1% described the minimal required elements for informed consent: the benefit of colonoscopy, both of the major risks, and at least one approved alternative test. Compared to subjects with higher levels of education or income, fewer subjects with lower levels of education or income could name at least one risk of colonoscopy or one approved alternative test to colonoscopy. For benefits, risks, and alternatives, a smaller percentage of subjects responding reported obtaining information from their doctors than from other sources.
Patients scheduled for screening colonoscopy have limited knowledge of its risks and alternatives; subjects with lower education levels and lower income have even less understanding. For patients who do not receive additional information until they have begun the preparation for the test, the quality of informed consent may be low.
虽然推荐了多种用于结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的检测方法和策略,但研究表明,初级保健提供者经常推荐结肠镜检查,却不提供其风险或替代方法的相关信息。这些观察结果引发了对结肠镜筛查知情同意质量的担忧。
我们于2008年8月至2009年9月对98名计划进行结肠镜筛查的患者进行了一项电话调查,以评估他们对该检查的益处、风险、替代方法以及信息来源的了解情况。
足足90.8%的受试者至少大致描述了结肠镜筛查的目的。只有48.0%的受试者描述了该检查至少一种风险。仅有24.5%的受试者说出了至少一种经批准的替代检测方法。只有3.1%的受试者描述了知情同意所需的最少要素:结肠镜检查的益处、两种主要风险以及至少一种经批准的替代检测方法。与教育程度或收入水平较高的受试者相比,教育程度或收入水平较低的受试者能说出结肠镜检查至少一种风险或一种经批准的替代检测方法的人数更少。对于益处、风险和替代方法,报告从医生处获取信息的受试者比例低于从其他来源获取信息的比例。
计划进行结肠镜筛查的患者对其风险和替代方法的了解有限;教育程度较低和收入较低的受试者了解更少。对于那些直到开始检查准备才获得额外信息的患者,知情同意的质量可能较低。