Multimedia in the informed consent process for endoscopic sinus surgery: A randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine patient recall of specific risks associated with endoscopic sinus surgery and whether an adjunct multimedia education module is an effective patient tool in enhancing the standard informed consent process. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Fifty consecutive adult patients scheduled for endoscopic sinus surgery at a rhinology clinic of a tertiary care hospital were recruited for this study. Informed consent was studied by comparing the number of risks recalled when patients had a verbal discussion in conjunction with a 6-minute interactive module or the verbal discussion alone. Early recall was measured immediately following the informed consent process, and delayed recall was measured 3 to 4 weeks after patient preference details were also collected. RESULTS: Early risk recall in the multimedia group was significantly higher than the control group (P = .0036); however, there was no difference between the groups in delayed risk recall. Seventy-six percent of participants expressed interest in viewing the multimedia module if available online between the preoperative and procedural day. Sixty-eight percent of patients preferred having the multimedia module as an adjunct to the informed consent process as opposed to the multimedia consent process alone. CONCLUSIONS: There is an early improvement in overall risk recall in patients who complete an interactive multimedia module, with a clear patient preference for this method. Here we emphasize the well-known challenges of patient education and demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating technology into clinical practice in order to enhance the informed consent process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b Laryngoscope, 126:1273-1278, 2016.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".