Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2006 Sep 9;333(7567):528.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.38922.516204.55. Epub 2006 Jul 31.

Patients' perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study

Andrea Akkad  1 , Clare Jackson, Sara Kenyon, Mary Dixon-Woods, Nick Taub, Marwan Habiba
Affiliations

Patients' perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study

Andrea Akkad et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To examine patients' understanding of the status, function, and remit of written consent to surgery.

Design: Prospective questionnaire study. Questionnaires were sent to patients within one month of surgery. Responses were analysed with frequencies and single variable analyses.

Setting: Large teaching hospital.

Participants: 732 patients who had undergone surgery in obstetrics and gynaecology over a six month period.

Main outcome measures: Patients' awareness of the legal implications of written consent and their views on the function and remit of the consent form.

Results: Patients had limited understanding of the legal standing of written consent. Nearly half (46%, 95% confidence interval 43% to 50%) of patients believed the primary function of consent forms was to protect hospitals and 68% (65% to 71%) thought consent forms allowed doctors to assume control. Only 41% (37% to 44%) of patients believed consent forms made their wishes known.

Conclusions: Many patients seem to have limited awareness of the legal implications of signing or not signing consent forms, and they do not recognise written consent as primarily serving their interests. Current consent procedures seem inadequate as a means for the expression of autonomous choice, and their ethical standing and credibility can be called into question.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Worthington R. Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns. J Med Ethics 2002;28: 377-80. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health. Reference guide to consent for examination or treatment. 2001. www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/90/79/04019079.pdf (accessed 24 July 2006).
    1. Department of Health. Consent forms. www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/90/34/04019034.pdf (accessed 24 July 2006).
    1. Mayberry MK, Mayberry JF. Towards better informed consent in endoscopy: a study of information and consent processes in gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001;13: 1467-6. - PubMed
    1. Dixon-Woods M. Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leaflets. Soc Sci Med 2001;52: 1417-32. - PubMed

Publication types