Is There a Difference Between the Readabilities of Informed Consent Forms Used for Elective and Emergency Procedures in Turkey?

Abstract

Background:

Informed consent is an important aspect of ethical medical practice. In legal terms, making an intervention without informed consent may mean negligence or malpractice and may lead to legal action, maltreatment, and even attack against the doctor. This study aims to evaluate the readability of informed consent forms (ICFs) used for elective (urology and general surgery) and emergency procedures (emergency medicine and intensive care) by comparing through readability formulas.

Methods:

Elective and emergency ICFs were accessed through the web sites of national health care associations. A total of 387 consent forms were evaluated and the same forms were included only once. A total of 35 consent forms were evaluated for emergency procedures, while a total of 55 consent forms were evaluated for elective procedures. Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas defined for determining the readability level of Turkish texts and Gunning fog and Flesch Kincaid formulas measuring the general readability level were used for calculating the readability level of consent forms.

Results:

Even though elective ICFs are more readable compared to those of emergency procedures according to Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas, this was statistically insignificant (P = .54). The readability of elective consent forms was found to be at a significantly more difficult level to read compared to Ateşman, Gunning fog, and Flesch Kincaid formulas (P = .002, P < .001, P < .001, respectively).

Conclusion:

Even though the procedure is emergency or elective, a difficult readability level may cause problems for the doctor in legal phases. Readable and understandable consent forms should be available to be able to explain morbidity and mortality and improve prognosis. Education level of our country should also be considered while preparing these consent forms.

Keywords

emergency informed consent forms intensive care readability understandability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Meneguin

Aparecido Ayres

. Perception of the informed consent form by participants in clinical trials. Invest Educ Enferm. 2014;32(1):97–102.

Tanrıöver

Yıldırım

Ready

FND

Çakır

Akalın

. Turkey Health Literacy Survey. http://www.sagliksen.org.tr/cdn/uploads/gallery/pdf/8dcec50aa18c21cdaf86a2b33001a409.pdf. Published December 2014

Borello

Ferrarese

Passera

, et al. Use of a simplified consent form to facilitate patient understanding of informed consent for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Open Med (Wars). 2016;11(1):564–573.

Boztaş

Özbilgin

Öçmen

, et al. Evaluating the readability of informed consent forms available before anaesthesia: a comparative study. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2014;42:140–144.

Ateşman

. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language J 1997;58:171–174.

Bezirci

Yılmaz

. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEU FMD. 2010;12(3):49–62.

Flesch

. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221–233.

Gunning

. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International Book Co; 1952.

Sanghvi

Cherla

Shukla

Eloy

. Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures. Laryngoscope. 2012;122(9):1943–1948.

10.

Eltorai

Sharma

Wang

Daniels

. Most American academy of orthopaedic surgeons’ online patient education material exceeds average patient reading level. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(4):1181–1186.

11.

Eltorai

Han

Truntzer

Daniels

. Readability of patient education materials on the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine website. Phys Sports Med. 2014;42(4):125–130.

12.

Eltorai

Ghanian

Adams

Jr Born

Daniels

. Readability of patient education materials on the American association for surgery of trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014;3(2):e18161.

13.

Crepeau

McKinney

Fox-Ryvicker

Castelli

Penna

Wang

. Prospective evaluation of patient comprehension of informed consent. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(19):e114(1–7).

14.

Mariscal-Crespo

Coronado-Vázquez

Ramirez-Durán

. Global analysis of the readability of the informed consent forms used in public hospitals of Spain [in Spanish]. Rev Calid Asist. 2017;32(4):200–208.

15.

San Norberto

Gómez-Alonso

Trigueros

Quiroga

Gualis

Vaquero

. Readability of surgical informed consent in Spain [in Spanish]. Cir Esp. 2014;92(3):201–207.

16.

Eltorai

Naqvi

Ghanian

, et al. Readability of invasive procedure consent forms. Clin Transl Sci. 2015;8(6):830–833.

17.

Gargoum

O’Keeffe

. Readability and content of patient information leaflets for endoscopic procedures. Ir J Med Sci. 2014;183(3):429–432.

18.

Barro

Lee

. Educational attainment dataset. http://www.barrolee.com/. Published 2011.

19.

Pruthi

Nielsen

Raynor

Woods

Wallen

Smith

. Readability of American online patient education materials in urologic oncology: a need for simple communication. Urology. 2015;85(2):351–356.

20.

Shukla

Daly

Legutko

. Informed consent for cataract surgery: patient understanding of verbal, written, and videotaped information. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(1):80–84.