Patient knowledge of surgical informed consent and shared decision-making process among surgical patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed consent is one of the safeguarding of the patient in medical practice at different standards such as ethical, legal, and administrative purposes. Patient knowledge and perception of informed consent are one of the priority concerns in surgical procedures. Patient knowledge and perception towards informed consent increased patient satisfaction, feeling high power on their determination, and accountability for the management, and facilitated positive treatment outcomes. Despite this, in Ethiopia, there are small-scale primary studies with inconsistent and inconclusive findings. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis study estimated the pooled prevalence of patient knowledge and perception of informed consent and its determinants in Ethiopia. METHODS: We searched major databases such as PubMed, Hinary, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, African Journal Online (AJO), Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, google, and reference lists. Besides this, University databases in the country were also searched from August 20, 2023, until September 30, 2023,. All published and unpublished studies that report the prevalence of patient knowledge and perception toward informed consent and its associated factors were included. All studies reported in English were included. Studies conducted between January 01, 2015 to September 30, 2023 were included. There are three outcome measurements pooled level of patient knowledge towards informed consent, pooled level of patient perception towards informed consent, and pooled effect that affects patient knowledge of informed consent. Three reviewers (MMM, NK, and YT) independently screened the articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria to avoid the risk of bias. The studies' quality was appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) version. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of appropriate patient knowledge and perception towards informed consent was 32% (95% CI: 21, 43) and 40% (95% CI: 16, 65) respectively. Having formal education 2.69 (95% CI: 1.18, 6.15) and having a history of signed informed consent before 3.65 (95% CI:1.02,13.11) had a statistically significant association with good patient knowledge towards informed consent. CONCLUSION: The appropriate patient knowledge and perception of informed consent in Ethiopia is low. Formal education and history of signed informed consent were positive factors for appropriate patient knowledge of informed consent in Ethiopia. Physicians, policymakers, and health facility managers should focus on patients without prior experience with signed informed consent and not have formal education to improve patient knowledge towards informed consent. The protocol was registered at Prospero with number CRD42023445409 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#myprospero .
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 | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".