Back

Aids to Improve Statistical Risk Communication in Patients Consenting for Surgery and Interventional Procedures: a Systematic Review

Jalal, A. H. B.; Chatzopoulou, D.; Marcus, H. J.; Pandit, A. S.

2023-01-19 surgery
10.1101/2023.01.19.23284521
Show abstract

ObjectiveEvaluate the effect of risk communication tools on the understanding of statistical risk of complications occurring in patients undergoing a surgical or interventional procedure. Summary Background DataInformed consent is an essential process in clinical decision-making, through which healthcare providers educate patients about the benefits, risks and alternatives of a procedure. Numerical risk information is by nature probabilistic and difficult to communicate. Aids which support statistical risk communication and studies assessing their effectiveness are needed. MethodsA systematic search was performed across Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science until July 2021 with a repeated search in September 2022. Studies examining risk communication tools (e.g. informative leaflets, audio-video) in adults (age>16) patients undergoing a surgical or interventional procedure were included. Studies only assessing understanding of non-statistical aspects of the procedure were excluded. Both randomised control trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included. Cochrane risk-of-bias and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of studies. Due to heterogeneity of the studies, a narrative synthesis was performed (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022285789). ResultsA total of 4348 articles were identified and following abstract and full-text screening a total of 11 articles were included. 8 studies were RCTs and 3 were cross-sectional. The total number of adult patients was 1030. The most common risk communication tool used was additional written information (n=7). Of the 8 RCTs, 5 showed statistically significant improvements in the intervention group in outcomes relating to recall of statistical risk. Quality assessment of RCTs found some concerns with all studies. ConclusionsRisk communication tools appear to improve recall of statistical risk. Additional prospective trials are warranted which can compare various aids and determine the most effective method of improving patient understanding.

Matching journals

1
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 12%
1.9× avg
2
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 3%
5.2× avg
3
Systematic Reviews
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
#1
108× avg
4
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 0.2%
57× avg
5
Journal of Clinical Medicine
MDPI AG · based on 77 published papers
Top 2%
9.0× avg
6
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Elsevier BV · based on 13 published papers
Top 0.5%
37× avg
7
npj Digital Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 85 published papers
Top 6%
3.7× avg
8
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 36 published papers
Top 5%
5.7× avg
9
BMJ Paediatrics Open
BMJ · based on 20 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
10
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers Media SA · based on 99 published papers
Top 11%
2.3× avg
11
BMC Neurology
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
Top 1%
19× avg
12
Heliyon
Elsevier BV · based on 57 published papers
Top 5%
4.3× avg
13
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 81%
0.9%
14
Journal of the American Heart Association
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 92 published papers
Top 11%
0.8%
15
JAMA Network Open
American Medical Association (AMA) · based on 125 published papers
Top 19%
0.8%
16
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ · based on 15 published papers
Top 3%
7.3× avg
17
BMJ
BMJ · based on 49 published papers
Top 6%
3.2× avg
18
Biology Methods and Protocols
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 19 published papers
Top 4%
4.5× avg
19
BMC Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 155 published papers
Top 26%
0.5%