↓ 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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 62 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Psychology 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 67 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,416,699
of 23,658,138 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#369
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,553
of 333,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,658,138 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 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 333,444 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.