Linked Life Data

1941028

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/1941028

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
8
pubmed:dateCreated
1991-12-9
pubmed:abstractText
Informed consent has been indirectly studied only in settings that do not replicate the actual consent process. We designed a sham study and randomly allocated adult ambulatory patients to receive one of two consent forms: Consent A (n = 52) described a randomized trial of usual treatment vs a new medication that "may work twice as fast as the usual treatment"; or Consent B (n = 48) that described a randomized trial of a new medication that "may work half as fast as the usual treatment". Patients randomized to Consent A were more likely to consent than those randomized to Consent B (consent rate A = 67%, consent rate B = 42%, p less than 0.01). Among patients who cited quantitative information, the difference in consent rate was even more marked (95% vs 36%, p less than 0.001); patients who did not cite quantitative information had equivalent consent rates. Patients who perceived minimal or severe symptoms had lower consent rates than those with mid-range symptom scores (chi 2(2) = 8.35, p = 0.015). Patients who recognize quantitative information will use it to make informed consent decisions.
pubmed:keyword
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
E
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0895-4356
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
44
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
771-7
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1991
pubmed:articleTitle
A randomized controlled trial comparing quantitative informed consent formats.
pubmed:affiliation
Ambulatory Care Service, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, North Carolina 27705.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't