4.6 Article

Readability and Content Assessment of Informed Consent Forms for Medical Procedures in Croatia

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Croatian Ministry of Science, Education and Sport [108-1081871-90]
  2. University of Zagreb School of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background High quality of informed consent form is essential for adequate information transfer between physicians and patients. Current status of medical procedure consent forms in clinical practice in Croatia specifically in terms of the readability and the content is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the readability and the content of informed consent forms for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures used with patients in Croatia. Methods 52 informed consent forms from six Croatian hospitals on the secondary and tertiary health-care level were tested for reading difficulty using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) formula adjusted for Croatian language and for qualitative analysis of the content. Results The averaged SMOG grade of analyzed informed consent forms was 13.25 (SD 1.59, range 10-19). Content analysis revealed that informed consent forms included description of risks in 96% of the cases, benefits in 81%, description of procedures in 78%, alternatives in 52%, risks and benefits of alternatives in 17% and risks and benefits of not receiving treatment or undergoing procedures in 13%. Conclusions Readability of evaluated informed consent forms is not appropriate for the general population in Croatia. The content of the forms failed to include in high proportion of the cases description of alternatives, risks and benefits of alternatives, as well as risks and benefits of not receiving treatments or undergoing procedures. Data obtained from this research could help in development and improvement of informed consent forms in Croatia especially now when Croatian hospitals are undergoing the process of accreditation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available