↓ Skip to main content

Educational video-assisted versus conventional informed consent for trauma-related debridement surgery: a parallel group randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Educational video-assisted versus conventional informed consent for trauma-related debridement surgery: a parallel group randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0264-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yen-Ko Lin, Chao-Wen Chen, Wei-Che Lee, Yuan-Chia Cheng, Tsung-Ying Lin, Chia-Ju Lin, Leiyu Shi, Yin-Chun Tien, Liang-Chi Kuo

Abstract

We investigated whether, in the emergency department (ED), educational video-assisted informed consent is superior to the conventional consent process, to inform trauma patients undergoing surgery about the procedure, benefits, risks, alternatives, and postoperative care. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial, with superiority study design. All trauma patients scheduled to receive trauma-related debridement surgery in the ED of Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital were included. Patients were assigned to one of two education protocols. Participants in the intervention group watched an educational video illustrating informed consent information, whereas those in the control group read an informed consent document. The primary outcome was knowledge scores and the secondary outcome was assessment of patient satisfaction. A multivariable regression model, with predefined covariates, was used to analyze differences in knowledge scores and patient satisfaction levels between the groups. A total of 142 patients were enrolled, with 70 and 72 assigned to the intervention and control groups, respectively. Mean knowledge scores were higher in the intervention (72.57 ± 16.21 (SD)) than in the control (61.67 ± 18.39) group. By multivariate analysis, the intervention group had significantly greater differences in knowledge scores (coefficient: 7.646, 95% CI: 3.381-11.911). Age, injury severity score, and baseline knowledge score significantly affected the differences in knowledge scores. Significant improvements were observed in patients' perception of statements addressing comprehension of the information provided, helpfulness of the supplied information for decision making, and satisfaction with the informed consent process. Multivariate analysis showed significant correlations between video education and patient satisfaction. Both the educational approach and severity of injury may have an impact on patient understanding during the informed consent process in an emergency environment. Video-assisted informed consent may improve the understanding of surgery and satisfaction with the informed consent process for trauma patients in the ED. Institutions should develop structured methods and other strategies to better inform trauma patients, facilitate treatment decisions, and improve patient satisfaction. The ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier is NCT01338480 . The date of registration was April 18, 2011 (retrospectively registered).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 17 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,790,595
of 12,701,041 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#188
of 540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,528
of 273,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,701,041 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them