4.8 Article

Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardial infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational study

期刊

LANCET
卷 361, 期 9361, 页码 918-922

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12773-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Anxiety, fear, pain, and treatment with morphine might compromise the ability of patients to comprehend information about, and give informed consent for, participation in clinical trials. We aimed to assess whether patients with acute myocardial infarction could understand written and verbal information and whether they were competent to give autonomous informed consent to participate in a clinical trial. Methods We prospectively studied 399 patients with acute myocardial infarction in 16 hospitals in New Zealand and Australia who were eligible for participation in the Hirulog and Early Reperfusion or Occlusion (HERO)-2 trial. We assessed readability of patient information sheets, patients' educational status, their views of the consent process, comprehension of verbal and written information, and competence to give consent. Findings The patient information sheet needed a year 13 (age 18) educational level for comprehension, although only 75 of 345 patients (22%) had been educated beyond secondary school. Only 63 of 346 (18%) read the patient. information sheet before giving or refusing consent to participate. Patients who gave consent were more likely to report good or partial comprehension of the information provided than were those who refused consent (272 [89%] vs 14 [70%], respectively; p=0.009). In an assessment of competence to make an autonomous decision, 75 of 145 (52%) were ranked at the lowest grade and 26 (18%) were not competent to consent. Interpretation Although the consent process for HERO-2 met regulatory requirements for clinical trials, it was inappropriate for the needs of most patients. The patients' comprehension of the information provided and their competence to autonomously give consent was less than optimum.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据