Under what conditions do patients want to be informed about their risk of a complication? A vignette study
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):276-282 (2009)
|Abstract||Background: Discussing treatment risks has become increasingly important in medical communication. Still, despite regulations, physicians must decide how much and what kind of information to present. Objective: To investigate patients’ preference for information about a small risk of a complication of colonoscopy, and whether medical and personal factors contribute to such preference. To propose a disclosure policy related to our results. Design: Vignettes study. Setting: Department of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Patients: 810 consecutive colonoscopy patients. Intervention: A home-sent questionnaire containing three vignettes. Vignettes varied in the indication for colonoscopy, complication severity and level of risk. Patients were invited to indicate their wish to be informed and the importance of such information. In addition, sociodemograhic, illness-related and psychological characteristics were assessed. Main outcome measurements: Wish to be informed and importance of information. Results: Of 810 questionnaires, 68% were returned. Patients generally wished to be informed about low-risk complications, regardless of the indication for colonoscopy or the severity of the complication. The level of risk did matter, though (OR = 2.48, SE = 0.28, p = 0.001). The information was considered less important if done for population screening purposes or diagnosis of colon cancer, if the complication was less severe (bleeding) and if the risk was smaller (0.01% and 0.1%). Patients’ information preference was also related to age, mood and coping style. Limitations: Difficulty of vignettes. Conclusions: Patients generally wish to be informed about all possible risks. However, this might become uninformative. A stepwise approach is suggested|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
G. G. Palmboom, D. L. Willems, N. B. A. T. Janssen & J. C. J. M. de Haes (2007). Doctor's Views on Disclosing or Withholding Information on Low Risks of Complication. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2):67-70.
Christopher F. C. Jordens, Kathleen Montgomery & Rowena Forsyth (2013). Trouble in the Gap: A Bioethical and Sociological Analysis of Informed Consent for High-Risk Medical Procedures. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (1):67-77.
Gil Siegal, Richard J. Bonnie & Paul S. Appelbaum (2012). Personalized Disclosure by Information-on-Demand: Attending to Patients' Needs in the Informed Consent Process. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (2):359-367.
N. Waller Bruce (1995). Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment: The Case of Desperate Volunteers. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1).
Jerry Menikoff (2006). What the Doctor Didn't Say: The Hidden Truth About Medical Research. Oxford University Press.
Dayna Bowen Matthew (2008). Race, Religion, and Informed Consent - Lessons From Social Science. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (1):150-173.
Richard J. Veerapen (2007). Informed Consent: Physician Inexperience is a Material Risk for Patients. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (3):478-485.
Mark Greene & Suzanne M. Smith (2008). Consenting to Uncertainty: Challenges for Informed Consent to Disease Screening—a Case Study. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (6):371-386.
Syed Mamun Mahmud & Aasim Ahmad (2009). Patients as Teaching Tools: Merely Informed or True Consent. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (4):255-260.
Katherine Carroll & Catherine Waldby (2012). Informed Consent and Fresh Egg Donation for Stem Cell Research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (1):29-39.
Insoo Hyun (2000). When Adolescents "Mismanage" Their Chronic Medical Conditions: An Ethical Exploration. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (2):147-163.
Peter H. Schwartz (2009). Disclosure and Rationality: Comparative Risk Information and Decision-Making About Prevention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (3):199-213.
Emma Verástegui (2006). Consenting of the Vulnerable: The Informed Consent Procedure in Advanced Cancer Patients in Mexico. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 7 (1):1-12.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads3 ( #213,563 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,325 )
How can I increase my downloads?