A METHOD SUGGESTION TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INFORMED CONSENT DURING TREATMENT PROCESS A Study on University Students

Abstract

It is difficult and subjective to evaluate how much of the treatment information given has been understood by the patient during the informing process. Various court decisions show that courts expect a hundred percent success in the informing process. This research was conducted to observe the effectiveness of written and verbal information given under ideal conditions.

A coronary angiography consent form was standardized to measure readability and understandability. Two different labyrinth tests were performed from the text. Tests were performed on the Baskent University students in Turkey.

The labyrinth test's subjects responded to the test after verbal information, had an absolute rate of 32.5% while the labyrinth test's subjects, responded to prior verbal information had an absolute success rate of 15%. 87.7% of those who achieved absolute success, in the second labyrinth test, also received verbal information. In the verbally informed group, those who achieved absolute success in the first test were 8.5%, while this rate increased to 28.5% after verbal information.

There was no difference between the groups, in terms of the number of correct answers and response time, in the first test. Significant differences between the groups' tests arose in the test administered after being informed. This paper argues that the difference of total correct answers between the groups, in the post-test, stems from the effects of verbal informing.

This study observed that verbally informing is more effective than written informing. It concludes that the success of the informing process can be measured by developing standardized methods, though it is unlikely to achieve 100% success.