Journals / Turkish Journal of Surgery / 2018 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of the readability of informed consent forms used in urology: Is there a difference between open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery?

Pages
295–299
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We think that the cooperation of the concerned institutions is required for the revisionof the consent information texts available and the improvement of the texts according to the strategies recommended.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability levels of informed consent forms used in Turkey before urological surgery and to compare the readability levels of open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgical informed consent forms.Material and Methods: A total of 529 informed consent forms used for urological open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgical procedures were collected from different hospitals in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Evaluating informed consent forms that have exactly thesame text only once, a total of 69 consent forms were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We think that the cooperation of the concerned institutions is required for the revisionof the consent information texts available and the improvement of the texts according to the strategies recommended.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability levels of informed consent forms used in Turkey before urological surgery and to compare the readability levels of open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgical informed consent forms.Material and Methods: A total of 529 informed consent forms used for urological open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgical procedures were collected from different hospitals in Turkey. Evaluating informed consent forms that have exactly thesame text only once, a total of 69 consent forms were evaluated. The Gunning Fog Index and Flesch–Kincaid test measuringthe general readability level were used to calculate the readability level of informed consent forms in addition to the Ateşman and Bezirci–Yılmaz formulas defined to determine the readability level of Turkish texts. Informed consent forms wereevaluated and divided into three groups as open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery forms, depending on their content.Results: Among 69 informed consent forms evaluated, 35 were open, 19 were endoscopic, and 15 were laparoscopicsurgery consent forms. The readability level of all informed consent forms was detected as average according to theAteşman formula, very difficult according to the Flesch–Kincaid test, difficult according to the Gunning Fog Index,and at the high school education level according to the Bezirci–Yılmaz formula. A statistical evaluation of the threegroups did not show a significant difference in the readability level.Conclusion: In this study, it was detected that the informed consent form readability levels used for urological surgical procedures in our country were rather low. We think that the cooperation of the concerned institutions is required for the revisionof the consent information texts available and the improvement of the texts according to the strategies recommended.

🔖

Cite This Article

SÖNMEZ, M. G., KOZANHAN, B., ÖZKENT, M. S., ECER, G., BOGA, M. S., DEMİRELLİ, E., ÖZTÜRK, A. (2018). Evaluation of the readability of informed consent forms used in urology: Is there a difference between open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery?. Turkish Journal of Surgery, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 4, 295–299. https://ajindex.com/articles/390468

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Borello A, Ferrarese A, Passera R, Surace A, Marola S, Buccelli C, et al. Use of a simplified consent form to facilitate patient understanding of informed consent for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Open Med (Wars) 2016; 11: 564-573. [CrossRef] Ritterband LM, Thorndike FP, Cox DJ, Kovatchev BP, Gonder-Frederick LA. A behavior change model for internet interventions. Ann Behav Med 2009; 38: 18-27. [CrossRef] Kozanhan B, Tuta MS. Readability of Patient Education Texts Presented on the Internet in the Field of Anesthesiology. Turkiye Klinikleri J Anest Reanim 2017; 15: 63-70. [CrossRef] Boztaş N, Özbilgin Ş, Öçmen E, Altuntaş G, Özkardeşler S, Hancı V, et al. Evaluating the Readibility of Informed Consent Forms Available Before Anaesthesia: A Comparative Study. Turk J Anaesth Reanim 2014; 42: 140-144. [CrossRef] Tanrıöver MD, Yıldırım HH, Ready FND, Çakır B, Akalın HE. Sağlık Okuryazarlığı Araştırması. 2014. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. A.U. Tömer Language Journal 1997; 58: 171-174.
  2. Bezirci B, Yılmaz AE. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for turkish. DEÜ FMD 2010; 12: 49-62. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Phycol 1948; 32: 221. [CrossRef] Gunning R. “The Technique of Clear Writing”, McGraw-Hill International Book Co, New York. 1952. The Metaphysics Resaerch Lab. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Informed Con-sent,” 2011. Available from URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/informed-consent (Accessed July 15, 2015).
  3. Eltorai AE, Naqvi SS, Ghanian S, Eberson CP, Weiss AP, Born CT, et al. Readability of Invasive Procedure Consent Forms. Clin Transl Sci 2015; 8: 830-833. [CrossRef] Mello MM, Studdert DM, DesRoches CM, Peugh J, Zapert K, Brennan TA, Sage WM. Effects of a malpractice crisis on specialist supply and patient access to care. Ann Surg 2005; 242: 621-628. [CrossRef] Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 721-726. [CrossRef] Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D, Krasny A, Adams B, Ball E, et al. Empirical research on informed consent: an annotated bibliography. Hastings Cent Rep 1999; 29: 1-42. [CrossRef] Crepeau AE, McKinney BI, Fox-Ryvicker M, Castelli J, Penna J, Wang ED. Prospective evaluation of patient comprehension of informed consent. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: e114 (1-7).
  4. Eltorai AE, Sharma P, Wang J, Daniels AH. Most American academy of ortho