Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form

被引:40
作者
Sivanadarajah, N. [1 ]
El-Daly, I. [2 ]
Mamarelis, G. [3 ]
Sohail, M. Z. [3 ]
Bates, P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Royal Natl Orthopaed Hosp NHS Trust, Stanmore, Middx, England
[2] Barts Hlth NHS Trust, London, England
[3] Princess Alexandra Hosp NHS Trust, Harlow, Essex, England
关键词
Informed consent; Ethics; Orthopaedics; Readability; PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS; HEALTH LITERACY; ORTHOPEDICS; DOCUMENTS; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1308/rcsann.2017.0188
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to objectively ascertain the level of readability of standardised consent forms for orthopaedic procedures. METHODS Standardised consent forms (both in summary and detailed formats) endorsed by the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were retrieved from orthoconsent.com and assessed for readability. This involved using an online tool to calculate the validated Flesch reading ease score (FRES). This was compared with the FRES for the National Health Service (NHS) Consent Form 1. Data were analysed and interpreted according to the FRES grading table. RESULTS The FRES for Consent Form 1 was 55.6, relating to the literacy expected of an A level student. The mean FRES for the BOA summary consent forms (n=27) was 63.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.2-66.0) while for the detailed consent forms (n=32), it was 68.9 (95% CI: 67.7-70.0). All BOA detailed forms scored >60, correlating to the literacy expected of a 13-15-year-old. The detailed forms had a higher FRES than the summary forms (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the BOA endorsed standardised consent forms are much easier to read and understand than the NHS Consent Form 1, with the detailed BOA forms being the easiest to read. Despite this, owing to varying literacy levels, a significant proportion of patients may struggle to give informed consent based on the written information provided to them.
引用
收藏
页码:645 / 649
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [11] Faden RR, 1986, A History and Theory of Informed Consent
  • [12] Flesch R., 1951, TEST READABILITY
  • [13] A New Readability Yardstick
    Flesch, Rudolf
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1948, 32 (03) : 221 - 233
  • [14] Using the SMOG Formula to Revise a Health-Related Document
    Hedman, Amy S.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH EDUCATION, 2008, 39 (01) : 61 - 64
  • [15] Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents
    Jefford, Michael
    Moore, Rosemary
    [J]. LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2008, 9 (05) : 485 - 493
  • [16] New Federal Policy Initiatives To Boost Health Literacy Can Help The Nation Move Beyond The Cycle Of Costly 'Crisis Care'
    Koh, Howard K.
    Berwick, Donald M.
    Clancy, Carolyn M.
    Baur, Cynthia
    Brach, Cindy
    Harris, Linda M.
    Zerhusen, Eileen G.
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2012, 31 (02) : 434 - 443
  • [17] Informed consent conversations and documents: A quantitative comparison
    Koyfman, Shlomo A.
    Reddy, Chandana A.
    Hizlan, Sabahat
    Leek, Angela C.
    Kodish, Eric D.
    [J]. CANCER, 2016, 122 (03) : 464 - 469
  • [18] Lidz C.W., 1984, INFORM CONSENT
  • [19] Medical Protection Society, 2013, ESS GUID CONS
  • [20] NHS England, INF STAND