Informed Consent in Pediatric Otolaryngology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate parental recall of surgical risks and benefits in pediatric otolaryngology and to assess for factors that may influence recall. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic pediatric otolaryngology clinic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty-four parents of children <6 years of age who underwent consultation for adeno/tonsillectomy and/or tympanostomy tube insertion were prospectively enrolled. Consultation visits were video recorded and the benefits and risks of surgery documented. Two weeks following the consultation, parents were contacted for assessment of recall of information discussed during the consultation. RESULTS: Overall, parents recalled only one-third of the risks of surgery mentioned by the surgeons. Parents were significantly more likely to recall the benefits of surgery as opposed to the risks (P < .001). Nine parents (10.7%) reported that no benefits were discussed during the consultation, and 10 (11.9%) reported no mention of any risks. Inconsistencies were present in which risks and benefits were mentioned by the providers. Parents who decided to proceed with surgery (58.3%) were significantly less likely to recall the surgical risks than those who did not (P < .001). The specific surgeon involved, the number of caregivers present, parental education level, and prior surgical history did not influence recall. CONCLUSION: Parental recall of benefits and risks associated with common pediatric otolaryngology procedures was poor. This information is important because a low rate of recall may influence parents' perspectives of the procedure and could alter their decision-making processes or expectations. Methods to improve parental recall should be further studied.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".