World J Mens Health.  2016 Apr;34(1):47-55. 10.5534/wjmh.2016.34.1.47.

Prospective Randomized Controlled Study on the Efficacy of Multimedia Informed Consent for Patients Scheduled to Undergo Green-Light High-Performance System Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Urology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 2Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
  • 3Department of Surgery, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University Collegy of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 4Department of Urology, SMG-SNU Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University Collegy of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. volley@snu.ac.kr

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a multimedia informed consent (IC) presentation on the understanding and satisfaction of patients who were scheduled to receive 120-W green-light high-performance system photoselective vaporization of the prostate (HPS-PVP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A multimedia IC (M-IC) presentation for HPS-PVP was developed. Forty men with benign prostatic hyperplasia who were scheduled to undergo HPS-PVP were prospectively randomized to a conventional written IC group (W-IC group, n=20) or the M-IC group (n=20). The allocated IC was obtained by one certified urologist, followed by a 15-question test (maximum score, 15) to evaluate objective understanding, and questionnaires on subjective understanding (range, 0~10) and satisfaction (range, 0~10) using a visual analogue scale.
RESULTS
Demographic characteristics, including age and the highest level of education, did not significantly differ between the two groups. No significant differences were found in scores reflecting the objective understanding of HPS-PVP (9.9±2.3 vs. 10.6±2.8, p=0.332) or in subjective understanding scores (7.5±2.1 vs. 8.6±1.7, p=0.122); however, the M-IC group showed higher satisfaction scores than the W-IC group (7.4±1.7 vs. 8.4±1.5, p=0.033). After adjusting for age and educational level, the M-IC group still had significantly higher satisfaction scores.
CONCLUSIONS
M-IC did not enhance the objective knowledge of patients regarding this surgical procedure. However, it improved the satisfaction of patients with the IC process itself.

Keyword

Informed consent; Multimedia; Prostate; Prostatic hyperplasia; Surgical procedures, operative

MeSH Terms

Education
Humans
Informed Consent*
Male
Multimedia*
Prospective Studies*
Prostate*
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Volatilization*

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Comparison of the objective understanding scores for each question. Q1: anatomy of the prostate, Q2: function of the prostate, Q3: etiology of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH), Q4: symptoms of LUTS/BPH, Q5: diagnosis of LUTS/BPH, Q6: treatment modalities for LUTS/BPH, Q7: comparison of surgical treatment modalities, Q8: advantages and disadvantages of high-performance system photoselective vaporization of the prostate (HPS-PVP), Q9: HPS-PVP surgical procedure; Q10: course of hospital treatment after HPS-PVP, Q11: postoperative treatment in hospital, Q12: precautions after surgery, Q13: early complications of HPS-PVP, Q14: late complications of HPS-PVP, Q15: treatment of complications. *p<0.05.


Reference

1. Angelos P. Ethics and surgical innovation: challenges to the professionalism of surgeons. Int J Surg. 2013; 11(Suppl 1):S2–S5. PMID: 24380544.
Article
2. Jones B. Legal aspects of consent. BJU Int. 2000; 86:275–279. PMID: 10930931.
Article
3. Pape T. Legal and ethical considerations of informed consent. AORN J. 1997; 65:1122–1127. PMID: 9187459.
Article
4. Son H, Song SH, Paick JS. Current laser treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Korean J Urol. 2010; 51:737–744. PMID: 21165192.
Article
5. Lusuardi L, Hruby S, Janetschek G. New emerging technologies in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Opin Urol. 2013; 23:25–29. PMID: 23138466.
Article
6. Issa MM, Setzer E, Charaf C, Webb AL, Derico R, Kimberl IJ, et al. Informed versus uninformed consent for prostate surgery: the value of electronic consents. J Urol. 2006; 176:694–699. PMID: 16813921.
Article
7. Mulsow JJ, Feeley TM, Tierney S. Beyond consent--improving understanding in surgical patients. Am J Surg. 2012; 203:112–120. PMID: 21641573.
Article
8. Uzzaman MM, Tayeh S, Sinha S, Ratnasingham K, Stoker DL. Consenting practice for laparoscopic cholecystectomy -are we doing enough to warn patients about their operation? Int J Surg. 2011; 9:643–647. PMID: 21945868.
9. Masood J, Hafeez A, Wiseman O, Hill JT. Informed consent: are we deluding ourselves? A randomized controlled study. BJU Int. 2007; 99:4–5. PMID: 17227486.
Article
10. Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, Bartenfeld D, Nyirenda C, Webb A, et al. Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210:919–926. PMID: 20510800.
Article
11. Bollschweiler E, Apitzsch J, Obliers R, Koerfer A, Mönig SP, Metzger R, et al. Improving informed consent of surgical patients using a multimedia-based program? Results of a prospective randomized multicenter study of patients before cholecystectomy. Ann Surg. 2008; 248:205–211. PMID: 18650629.
12. Stergiopoulou A, Birbas K, Katostaras T, Mantas J. The effect of interactive multimedia on preoperative knowledge and postoperative recovery of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods Inf Med. 2007; 46:406–409. PMID: 17694232.
Article
13. Wilhelm D, Gillen S, Wirnhier H, Kranzfelder M, Schneider A, Schmidt A, et al. Extended preoperative patient education using a multimedia DVD-impact on patients receiving a laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised controlled trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009; 394:227–233. PMID: 19151995.
Article
14. Eggers C, Obliers R, Koerfer A, Thomas W, Koehle K, Hoelscher AH, et al. A multimedia tool for the informed consent of patients prior to gastric banding. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007; 15:2866–2873. PMID: 18070779.
Article
15. Rossi M, McClellan R, Chou L, Davis K. Informed consent for ankle fracture surgery: patient comprehension of verbal and videotaped information. Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25:756–762. PMID: 15566709.
Article
16. Rossi MJ, Guttmann D, MacLennan MJ, Lubowitz JH. Video informed consent improves knee arthroscopy patient comprehension. Arthroscopy. 2005; 21:739–743. PMID: 15944633.
Article
17. Luck A, Pearson S, Maddern G, Hewett P. Effects of video information on precolonoscopy anxiety and knowledge: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999; 354:2032–2035. PMID: 10636368.
Article
18. Danino AM, Chahraoui K, Frachebois L, Jebrane A, Moutel G, Herve C, et al. Effects of an informational CD-ROM on anxiety and knowledge before aesthetic surgery: a randomised trial. Br J Plast Surg. 2005; 58:379–383. PMID: 15780234.
Article
19. Keulers BJ, Welters CF, Spauwen PH, Houpt P. Can face-to-face patient education be replaced by computer-based patient education? A randomised trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 67:176–182. PMID: 17448621.
Article
20. Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 140:721–728. PMID: 15126256.
Article
21. Isebaert S, Van Audenhove C, Haustermans K, Junius S, Joniau S, De Ridder K, et al. Evaluating a decision aid for patients with localized prostate cancer in clinical practice. Urol Int. 2008; 81:383–388. PMID: 19077396.
Article
22. Roehrborn CG. The epidemiology of acute urinary retention in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Rev Urol. 2001; 3:187–192. PMID: 16985717.
23. Bosch JL, Kranse R, van Mastrigt R, Schröder FH. Reasons for the weak correlation between prostate volume and urethral resistance parameters in patients with prostatism. J Urol. 1995; 153:689–693. PMID: 7532234.
Article
24. Han DH, Choo SH, Chung JW, Hong JH, Lee SW. Can 80 W KTP laser vaporization effectively relieve the obstruction in benign prostatic hyperplasia?: a nonrandomized trial. World J Mens Health. 2012; 30:160–165. PMID: 23596606.
Article
25. Parsons JK, Carter HB, Partin AW, Windham BG, Metter EJ, Ferrucci L, et al. Metabolic factors associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006; 91:2562–2568. PMID: 16608892.
Article
26. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, Donnell RF, et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2011; 185:1793–1803. PMID: 21420124.
Article
Full Text Links
  • WJMH
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr