Dataset Information

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written consent was obtained before angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND:The IC process in patients with AMI is under debate. Earlier trials in this population have required prospective consent before randomization. A trial published some years ago used deferred consent, but the patient experience of this process is poorly studied. METHODS:A total of 414 patients who participated in the main trial were enrolled and asked the following questions: (1) Do you remember being asked to participate in a study? (2) How was your experience of being asked to participate; do you remember it being positive or negative? (3) Would you have liked more information about the study? (4) Do you think it would have been better if you were included in the study without being informed until a later time? RESULTS:Of these patients, 94% remembered being included; 85% of them experienced this positively, 12% were neutral and 3% negative. Regarding more information, 88% did not want further information, and 68% expressed that they wanted to be consulted before inclusion. Of the patients, 5% thought it would have been better to have study inclusion without consent, and 27% considered it of no importance. CONCLUSION:It is reasonable to ask patients for verbal IC in the acute phase of AMI. Most patients felt positively about being asked to participate and had knowledge of being enrolled in a scientific study. In addition they objected to providing IC after randomization and treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART European Union Clinical Trials Register: 2012-005260-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02311231. Registered on 8 Dec 2014.

SUBMITTER: Olsson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7059267 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Olsson Anneli A Ring Camilla C Josefsson Johan J Eriksson Annika A Rylance Rebecca R Fröbert Ole O James Stefan S Sparv David D Erlinge David D

Trials 20200306 1

<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written conse ...[more]

PMID: 32143733

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe informed consent process is a vital component of daily medical practice. It involves providing patients with sufficient, accurate, and understandable information to decide on a contemplated therapy. The study aims to evaluate the patient experience and satisfaction with the preoperative informed consent process.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed on adult women admitted for elective gynecologic surgery in a tertiary training hospital. Participants were recruited on their second postoperative day and were asked to answer a structured questionnaire assessing decisional satisfaction and experience with the informed consent process. Satisfaction was measured using a 6-item Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Knowledge of the surgery and experience with the informed consent were measured using an Informed Consent Questionnaire. Bivariate associations between highly satisfied and not highly satisfied groups were tested using Fisher exact test.ResultsA total of 150 patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 44.5 years. The resident-in-charge provided the information and assisted in the documentation of the informed consent in 86.7% and 67.3% of patients, respectively. There was an overall high decisional satisfaction with a mean score of 27.4 and 52.7% of patients strongly agreeing to all statements of the Satisfaction with Decision Scale. The majority of the respondents were informed and acknowledged comprehension of the surgery including its risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options. Knowing the success rate and benefits of the procedure as well as being informed of the need for postoperative catheterization were significantly associated with high satisfaction.ConclusionKnowledge and understanding of the key components of informed consent influence patient satisfaction. The current study highlights the high decisional satisfaction rates of patients who underwent elective gynecologic surgery. Strategies to further improve this patient-physician encounter include the establishment of standard policies on personnel involved, timing, and quality of information given to patients. Patient satisfaction should serve as an indicator of the quality of healthcare rendered and guide for continuous improvement of services.

Project description:BackgroundProviding understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients' autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process.MethodsWe searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio-video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia.ResultsOur search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes.ConclusionsDigital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent is an integral component of good medical practice. Many researchers have investigated measures to improve the quality of informed consent, but it is not clear which techniques work best and why. To address this problem, we propose developing a core outcome set (COS) to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery in adult patients with capacity. Part of this process involves reviewing existing research that has reported what is important to patients and doctors in the informed consent process.MethodsThis qualitative synthesis comprises four phases: identification of published papers and determining their relevance; appraisal of the quality of the papers; identification and summary of the key findings from each paper while determining the definitiveness of each finding against the primary data; comparison of key themes between papers such that findings are linked across studies.ResultsSearches of bibliographic databases returned 11,073 titles. Of these, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were published between 1996 and 2016 and included a total of 367 patients and 74 health care providers. Thirteen studies collected data using in-depth interviews and constant comparison was the most common means of qualitative analysis. A total of 94 findings were extracted from the primary papers and divided into 17 categories and ultimately 6 synthesised findings related to: patient characteristics, knowledge, communication, the model patient, trust and decision making.ConclusionsThis qualitative meta-aggregation is the first to examine the issue of informed consent for surgery. It has revealed several outcomes deemed important to capture by patients and clinicians when evaluating the quality of a consent process. Some of these outcomes have not been examined previously in research comparing methods for informed consent. This review is an important step in the development of a COS to evaluate interventions designed to improve the consent process for surgery.RegistrationThe study protocol was registered on the international prospective register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017077101).

Dataset Information

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Publications

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets