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
. 2023 Aug;32(15-16):4311-4324.
doi: 10.1111/jocn.16603. Epub 2022 Dec 22.

Patients' right to know: A scoping review

Saija Inkeroinen  1 , Heli Virtanen  1 , Minna Stolt  1   2 , Helena Leino-Kilpi  1   3
Affiliations

Patients' right to know: A scoping review

Saija Inkeroinen et al. J Clin Nurs. 2023 Aug.

Abstract

Aims and objectives: To analyse research-based evidence about patients' right to know from their own perspective to promote ethically high-quality nursing and to identify future research areas.

Background: Patients' right to know is a fundamental right. Although of topical research interest, the current state of scientific evidence on patients' right to know has not been reviewed.

Design: A scoping review according to the methodological framework by Arksey & O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

Methods: In June 2022, a literature search was conducted in the Ovid Medline, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed, empirical studies on the right to know with samples comprising adult patients. Data were analysed with inductive content analysis, and methodological quality was assessed with Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Results: Out of 2658 identified reports, 12 were selected for analysis. Based on the results, the research on patients' right to know can be classified into two main content categories: (1) expectations of the right and (2) realisation of the right. In the quality assessment, most of the reports did not meet all the quality criteria, the most common deficits being related to instrumentation and risk of bias.

Conclusions: Research-based evidence on patients' right to know provided a general insight into expectations and realisation of the right to know and not to know. The results indicate a need for continued efforts for novel approaches with high-quality methodological choices in future studies.

Relevance to clinical practice: Nurses make constantly ethical decisions: The findings of this study can be useful for their decision-making and understanding of the patient's perspective on knowledge issues, and therefore, support ethically high-quality patient education.

Patient or public contribution: No direct patient or public contribution to the review.

Keywords: patient rights; right to information; right to know; scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Abedi, G., Shojaee, J., Moosazadeh, M., Rostami, F., Nadi, A., Abedini, E., Palenik, C. J., & Askarian, M. (2017). Awareness and observance of patient rights from the perspective of iranian patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences, 42(3), 227-234.
    1. Active Citizenship Network. (2002). European Charter of Patients' Rights.
    1. Anderson, R. M., & Funnell, M. M. (2010). Patient empowerment: Myths and misconceptions. Patient Education and Counseling, 79(3), 277-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.07.025
    1. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
    1. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources