Consent to sterilization section of the Medicaid-Title XIX form:: is it understandable?

被引:27
作者
Zite, Nikki B. [1 ]
Philipson, Sandra J.
Wallace, Lorraine S.
机构
[1] Univ Tennessee, Grad Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Knoxville, TN 37920 USA
[2] Univ Tennessee, Grad Sch Med, Dept Family Med, Knoxville, TN 37920 USA
关键词
sterilization; tubal ligation; consent; Medicaid; literacy; comprehension;
D O I
10.1016/j.contraception.2006.12.015
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction: We sought to assess readability and comprehension characteristics of the Consent to Sterilization section of the Medicaid-Title XIX form (Title XIX-SCF) in order to determine if it was likely providing informed consent to the Medicaid population. Materials and Methods: The current Title XIX-SCF was evaluated using the Readability and Processability Form (RPF). The RPF, designed to assess the format of informed consent documents, assigns points to each of 20 areas of comprehension analysis according to established scoring criteria. Finally, a modified Title XIX-SCF was developed and evaluated using the RPF. Results: The overall RPF score for the current Title XIX-SCF was in the "poor" range (total = 37), while the Fry reading level was at the ninth grade. The modified Title XIX-SCF scored in the "excellent" range (total = 92), while the Fry reading level was at the sixth grade. Conclusions: The readability and comprehension demands of the current Title XIX-SCF exceed recommended guidelines for patient education and informed consent materials. The current Title XIX-SCF should be revised to ensure that women understand, desire and consent to permanent sterilization. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:256 / 260
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], UNDERSTANDING HLTH L
[2]  
BARRON E, 1978, HLTH SOC WORK, V3, P49
[3]  
*COMM HLTH LIT, 2004, HLTH LIT PRESCR END
[4]  
Doak C.H., 1996, Teaching patients with low literacy skills
[5]  
FRY E, 1977, J READING, V21, P242
[6]   Informed consent documents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening: how large is the readability gap? [J].
Gribble, JN .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 1999, 38 (03) :175-183
[7]   The readability of currently used surgical/procedure consent forms in the United States [J].
Hopper, KD ;
TenHave, TR ;
Tully, DA ;
Hall, TEL .
SURGERY, 1998, 123 (05) :496-503
[8]  
*INF CONS WORK GRO, 2003, INT J GYNAECOL OB S2, V83, P147
[9]  
MOSHER WD, 1982, ADV DATA VITAL HLTH, V350
[10]  
National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005, NCES PUBLICATION