↓ Skip to main content

Core information sets for informed consent to surgical interventions: baseline information of importance to patients and clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Core information sets for informed consent to surgical interventions: baseline information of importance to patients and clinicians
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0188-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barry G. Main, Angus G. K. McNair, Richard Huxtable, Jenny L. Donovan, Steven J. Thomas, Paul Kinnersley, Jane M. Blazeby

Abstract

Consent remains a crucial, yet challenging, cornerstone of clinical practice. The ethical, legal and professional understandings of this construct have evolved away from a doctor-centred act to a patient-centred process that encompasses the patient's values, beliefs and goals. This alignment of consent with the philosophy of shared decision-making was affirmed in a recent high-profile Supreme Court ruling in England. The communication of information is central to this model of health care delivery but it can be difficult for doctors to gauge the information needs of the individual patient. The aim of this paper is to describe 'core information sets' which are defined as a minimum set of consensus-derived information about a given procedure to be discussed with all patients. Importantly, they are intended to catalyse discussion of subjective importance to individuals. The model described in this paper applies health services research and Delphi consensus-building methods to an idea orginally proposed 30 years ago. The hypothesis is that, first, large amounts of potentially-important information are distilled down to discrete information domains. These are then, secondly, rated by key stakeholders in multiple iterations, so that core information of agreed importance can be defined. We argue that this scientific approach is key to identifying information important to all stakeholders, which may otherwise be communicated poorly or omitted from discussions entirely. Our methods apply systematic review, qualitative, survey and consensus-building techniques to define this 'core information'. We propose that such information addresses the 'reasonable patient' standard for information disclosure but, more importantly, can serve as a spring board for high-value discussion of importance to the individual patient. The application of established research methods can define information of core importance to informed consent. Further work will establish how best to incorporate this model in routine practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 32%
Psychology 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 37 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,070,397
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#212
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,247
of 309,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 309,828 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.