Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures: An Updated Systematic Review

Abstract

Background. Patient comprehension is fundamental to valid informed consent. Current practices often result in inadequate patient comprehension. Purpose. An updated review to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Sources. Systematic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (2008–2018). Study Selection. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating interventions to improve patient comprehension in clinical informed consent. Data Extraction. Reviewers independently abstracted data using a standardized form, comparing all results and resolving disagreements by consensus. Data Synthesis. Fifty-two studies of 60 interventions met inclusion criteria. Compared with standard informed consent, a statistically significant improvement in patient comprehension was seen with 43% (6/14) of written interventions, 56% (15/27) of audiovisual interventions, 67% (2/3) of multicomponent interventions, 85% (11/13) of interactive digital interventions, and 100% (3/3) of verbal discussion with test/feedback or teach-back interventions. Eighty-five percent of studies (44/52) evaluated patients’ understanding of risks, 69% (41/52) general knowledge about the procedure, 35% (18/52) understanding of benefits, and 31% (16/52) understanding of alternatives. Participants’ education level was reported heterogeneously, and only 8% (4/52) of studies examined effects according to health literacy. Most studies (79%, 41/52) did not specify participants’ race/ethnicity. Limitations. Variation in interventions and outcome measures precluded conduct of a meta-analysis or calculation of mean effect size. Control group processes were variable and inconsistently characterized. Nearly half of studies (44%, 23/52) had a high risk of bias for the patient comprehension outcome. Conclusions. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent are heterogeneous. Interactive interventions, particularly with test/feedback or teach-back components, appear superior. Future research should emphasize all key elements of informed consent and explore effects among vulnerable populations.

Supporting patients to be involved in decisions about their health and care: Development of a best practice health literacy App for Australian adults living with Chronic Kidney Disease

“…Users receive visual feedback (eg green highlight and a tick for correct responses) and further information about the content of quiz questions based on their understanding. This is in line with systematic review findings that test/feedback interventions which use explicit communication prompts to assess comprehension improve patient comprehension compared with standard information provision 50 …”

Assessment of the Appropriateness of the i-CONSENT Guideline Recommendations for Improving Understanding of the Informed Consent Process in Clinical Studies

“…The use of digital technologies during the ICP is increasing. Several studies have measured the impact of interventions using multimedia, audio-video, or gami cation to provide information to patients or potential participants (18,19).…”

“…These, in their opinion, feel arti cial and make the potential participant feel as if they are in an exam. Glaser et al (19), however, highlight the positive impact of verbal discussion with test/feedback or teach-back components for improving patient comprehension. For this reason, we believe that while the best option is to have investigators with good communication skills that do not need to use these components, they can be a useful tool during verbal discussion at certain times.…”

Development, Piloting and Evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): A protocol for a mixed methods study

“…To resume the current state of research, we will review comparative studies on written material to promote informed consent identi ed in previous systematic reviews on this topic (30,31).…”