Raper Steven E, Clapp Justin T, Fleisher Lee A
From the Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Ann Surg Open. 2021 Jan 7;2(1):e030. doi: 10.1097/AS9.0000000000000030. eCollection 2021 Mar.
This study reviews randomized clinical trials that have attempted to improve the process of informed consent. Consent should be guided by the ethical imperatives of autonomy, beneficence, and social justice.
Informed consent is constantly evolving. Yet our review of the randomized trials done to improve the surgical informed consent process raises a number of questions: How does one define surgical informed consent? What interventions have been tried to measure and improve informed consent? Have the interventions in informed consent actually led to improvements? What efforts have been made to improve informed consent? And what steps can be taken to improve the process further?
A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs)on informed consent identified 70 trials. Demographics, interventions, assessments, and a semi-quantitative summary of the findings were tabulated. The assessments done in the RCTs, show the surrogate for patient autonomy was comprehension; for beneficence, satisfaction and mental state (anxiety or depression); and, for social justice, language, literacy, learning needs, and cost.
There were 4 basic categories of interventions: printed matter; non-interactive audiovisual tools; interactive multimedia; and a smaller group defying easy description. Improvement was documented in 46 of the 65 trials that studied comprehension. Thirteen of 33 trials showed improved satisfaction. Three of 30 studies showed an increase in anxiety. Few studies tried to assess primary language or literacy, and none looked at learning needs or cost.
No single study improved all 3 principles of informed consent. Validated interventions and assessments were associated with greater impact on outcomes. All 3 ethical principles should be assessed; autonomy (as comprehension), beneficence (as satisfaction, anxiety), and social justice. Not enough consideration has been given to social justice; appropriate language translation, standardized reading levels, assessment of learning needs, and cost to the individual are all important elements worthy of future study.
本研究回顾了旨在改进知情同意过程的随机临床试验。同意应以自主、有益和社会正义的伦理要求为指导。
知情同意在不断发展。然而,我们对为改进手术知情同意过程而进行的随机试验的回顾提出了一些问题:如何定义手术知情同意?为衡量和改进知情同意尝试了哪些干预措施?知情同意方面的干预措施是否真的带来了改进?为改进知情同意做出了哪些努力?以及可以采取哪些步骤进一步改进这一过程?
对关于知情同意的随机对照试验(RCT)进行文献检索,共识别出70项试验。对人口统计学、干预措施、评估以及研究结果的半定量总结进行了列表整理。RCT中进行的评估表明,患者自主性的替代指标是理解能力;有益性的替代指标是满意度和精神状态(焦虑或抑郁);社会正义的替代指标是语言、读写能力、学习需求和成本。
干预措施有4个基本类别:印刷品;非交互式视听工具;交互式多媒体;以及一小类难以简单描述的措施。在研究理解能力的65项试验中,有46项记录了改进情况。33项试验中有13项显示满意度有所提高。30项研究中有3项显示焦虑有所增加。很少有研究试图评估主要语言或读写能力,没有一项研究关注学习需求或成本。
没有一项研究改进了知情同意的所有3项原则。经过验证的干预措施和评估对结果有更大影响。应评估所有3项伦理原则;自主性(以理解能力衡量)、有益性(以满意度、焦虑衡量)和社会正义。对社会正义的考虑不足;适当的语言翻译、标准化的阅读水平、学习需求评估以及个人成本都是值得未来研究的重要因素。