To maintain their own health and the health of their families and communities, consumers rely heavily on the health information that is available to them. This information is at the core of the partnerships that patients and their families forge with today?s complex modern health systems. This information may be provided in a variety of forms ? ranging from a discussion between a patient and a health care provider to a health promotion advertisement, a consent form, or one of many other forms of health communication common in our society. Yet millions of Americans cannot understand or act upon this information. To address this problem, the field of health literacy brings together research and practice from diverse fields including education, health services, and social and cultural sciences, and the many organizations whose actions can improve or impede health literacy. Health Literacy: Prescription to End Confusion examines the body of knowledge that applies to the field of health literacy, and recommends actions to promote a health literate society. By examining the extent of limited health literacy and the ways to improve it, we can improve the health of individuals and populations.

Health literacy : a prescription to end confusion

We explored reasons for the failure of patients to recall major portions of the information on consent forms and in oral explanations about consent. Within one day of signing consent forms for chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery, 200 cancer patients completed a test of their recall of the material in the consent explanation and filled out a questionnaire regarding their opinions of its purpose, content, and implications. Only 60 per cent understood the purpose and nature of the procedure, and only 55 per cent correctly listed even one major risk or complication. We found that three factors were related to inadequate recall: education, medical status, and the care with which patients thought they had read their consent forms before signing. Only 40 per cent of the patients had read the form "carefully." Most believed that consent forms were meant to "protect the physician's rights." Although most thought that consent forms were necessary and comprehensible and that they contained worthwhile information, the legalistic connotations of the forms appeared to lead to cursory reading and inadequate recall.

Informed consent -- why are its goals imperfectly realized?

Relationship between preferences for decisional control and illness information among women with breast cancer: A quantitative and qualitative analysis

One hundred forty-four patients and 68 physicians at three cancer centers were studied for their perceptions of the consent procedure, in which they participated one to three weeks earlier, for chemotherapy by one of 65 investigational protocols. Patients recalled the procedure positively and relied heavily on physician's advice. They felt most physicians wanted them to accept; 29% felt their participation in the decision was not encouraged. Primary reasons for accepting were trust in the physician, belief the treatment would help, and fear the disease (viewed as highly serious) would get worse without it. Nearly a fourth did not recall the information given that treatment was investigational. The consent form played no role in decision-making for 69%. Physicians believed therapeutic benefits would exceed potential problems for most patients; they viewed 41% of the patients as less than eager for details of treatment, a third as avoiding the seriousness of the discussion, and a third as passive in decisio...

Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patients' and physicians' perceptions.

Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment.

One hundred breast cancer patients, 35 adjuvant and 65 advanced, were interviewed 0-24 months after the start of chemotherapy to assess their knowledge and perceptions of the purposes, risks and benefits of treatment. Prior to therapy, all had been given verbal explanations and had signed informed consent forms explicitly detailing drugs, objectives and possible adverse effects of therapy. Seventeen percent of adjuvant and 29% of advanced patients were unable to name any of their drugs. While most patients recognized distressing side effects such as nausea and hair loss, less than 50% were aware of the potentially lethal complications of infection and bleeding. While the purpose of adjuvant therapy was cure, only 29% of the adjuvant patients were aware of this. In contrast, 35% of the advanced patients incorrectly stated that they were told their therapy was potentially curative. Explanations given by a nurse in addition to a physician were better understood than those given by a physician alone. We conclude that, in spite of intensive efforts at improving informed consent procedures, current results are unsatisfactory.

Sarah Williams

Papers

Written informed consent in patients with breast cancer.