Portable video education for informed consent: the shape of things to come?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ORIGINAL ARTICLE, p 1014 Guidance surrounding consent in the U.K. is provided by the General Medical Council.1 Working in partnership with patients to discuss their condition and treatment in a way they understand is recommended. However, with increasing numbers of patients in time-pressured clinics needing to give consent for diagnostic biopsies, procedures or complex treatment, many practitioners agree that the current process for fully informed consent is less than optimal. One way to reconcile this and to enhance the process of consent in the future will undoubtedly be with the use of touch screen video technology. For example, patients could pause and replay information about procedures, risks, aftercare, complications and alternatives in an unhurried manner before providing informed consent. Drop-down menus dealing with ‘frequently asked questions’ could improve comprehension. In this month’s issue of the Journal Armstrong et al.2 show increased knowledge of shave or punch biopsies and postoperative care by use of portable video technology. For patients undergoing procedures, the authors compared video-based education using two short videos against verbal education for informed consent and wound care. As oral education varies between individuals and can be inconsistent, it is unsurprising that portable video media appeared to be more effective for education and resulted in higher satisfaction than traditional oral education. The authors have generously donated their videos.3-6 These can be accessed via the BJD website (http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0007-0963&site=1). It is the authors’ conclusion that video education appears to be a promising alternative to traditional oral instruction. However, my feeling is that rather than replace verbal information, portable video media will augment oral and written education and facilitate fully informed consent. Potentially, this could reduce complications and litigation requests and enhance the patient experience. Rarely does a paper promise to change clinical practice immediately. One reviewer was so impressed that he may get an iPad® (Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, U.S.A.) to educate his patients. Standardized, reproducible and consistent video information could be used for supplementing oral education for complex treatments such as Mohs micrographic surgery, phototherapy or treatment with biologics which perhaps require a more detailed understanding before fully informed comment can be said to have been obtained. One can envision an entire industry dedicated to producing video education libraries for patients prior to consent akin to safety videos before an airline flight. Elsewhere, other researchers have reported that video information can reduce pain and anxiety in those proposing to undergo nondermatological procedures. Video education preconsent may become the future gold standard. In my view it is the shape of things to come and I recommend the paper and videos to you.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,182 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,027 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,046 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».