Informed consent: do information pamphlets improve post-operative risk-recall in patients undergoing total thyroidectomy: Prospective randomized control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed consent consists of basic five elements: voluntarism, capacity, disclosure, understanding, and ultimate decision-making. Physician disclosure, patient understanding, and information retention are all essential in the doctor-patient relationship. This is inclusive of helping patients make and manage their decisions and expectations better and also to deal with any consequences and/or complications that arise. This study investigates whether giving patients procedure-specific handouts pre-operatively as part of the established informed consent process significantly improves overall risk-recall following surgery. These handouts outline the anticipated peri-operative risks and complications associated with total thyroidectomy, as well as the corrective measures to address complications. In addition, the influence of potential confounders affecting risk-recall, such as anxiety and pre-existing memory disturbance, are also examined. METHODS: Consecutive adult (≥18 years old) patients undergoing total thyroidectomy at a single academic tertiary care referral centre are included. Participants are randomly assigned into either the experimental group (with pamphlets) or the control group by a computerized randomization system (Clinstat). All participants filled out a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and they are tested by the physician for short-term memory loss using the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) exam. All patients are evaluated at one week post-operatively. The written recall questionnaire test is also administered during this clinical encounter. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients are included--25 of them receive verbal consent only, while another 24 patients received both verbal consent and patient education information pamphlets. The overall average of correct answers for each group was 83% and 80% in the control and intervention groups, respectively, with no statistically significant differences. There are also no statistically significant differences between the two groups, in both interview duration, in time between interviews, and in recall tests. No correlation is also apparent between the pre-op HADS score and the recall questionnaire overall score. CONCLUSIONS: A pre-operative thyroid surgical information pamphlet alone might not be sufficient to enhance patient test scores and optimally educate the patient on their expected care pathway in thyroid surgery. Supplementation with alternative means of patient education perhaps using emerging technologies needs to be further investigated.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".