Informed consent and medical ordeal: a qualitative study

Equitable and accessible informed healthcare consent process for people with intellectual disability: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors acting as barriers or enablers to the process of healthcare consent for people with intellectual disability and to understand how to make this process equitable and accessible.

DATA SOURCES

Databases: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and CINAHL. Additional articles were obtained from an ancestral search and hand-searching three journals.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Peer-reviewed original research about the consent process for healthcare interventions, published after 1990, involving adult participants with intellectual disability.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify factors affecting informed consent. The findings were reviewed by co-researchers with intellectual disability to ensure they reflected lived experiences, and an easy read summary was created.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included (1999 to 2020), with a mix of qualitative (n=14), quantitative (n=6) and mixed-methods (n=3) studies. Participant numbers ranged from 9 to 604 people (median 21) and included people with intellectual disability, health professionals, carers and support people, and others working with people with intellectual disability. Six themes were identified: (1) health professionals' attitudes and lack of education, (2) inadequate accessible health information, (3) involvement of support people, (4) systemic constraints, (5) person-centred informed consent and (6) effective communication between health professionals and patients. Themes were barriers (themes 1, 2 and 4), enablers (themes 5 and 6) or both (theme 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple reasons contribute to poor consent practices for people with intellectual disability in current health systems. Recommendations include addressing health professionals' attitudes and lack of education in informed consent with clinician training, the co-production of accessible information resources and further inclusive research into informed consent for people with intellectual disability.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021290548.

Communication Strategies of Transplant Hematologists in High-Risk Decision-Making Conversations

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to empower patients with blood cancers to make goal-concordant decisions about allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. This study characterizes communication strategies used by hematologists to discuss treatment options and facilitate SDM with patients in this high-risk, high-reward setting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We recruited US hematologists who routinely perform allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant through email. Participants conducted up to an hour-long video-recorded encounter with an actor portraying a 67-year-old man with recently diagnosed high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. We transcribed and qualitatively analyzed video-recorded data.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants (N = 37) was 44 years, 65% male, and 68% White. Many hematologists included similar key points in this initial consultation, although varied in how much detail they provided. Their discussion of treatment options included transplant and chemotherapy and less commonly supportive care or clinical trials. They often emphasized transplant's potential for cure, discussed transplant chronologically from pretransplant considerations through the post-transplant course, and outlined risks, complications, and major outcomes. Hematologists referred to several elements that formed the basis of treatment decision making. The strength of their treatment recommendations ranged from strong recommendations for transplant or chemotherapy to deferrals pending more information. Hematologists also varied in the extent to which they indicated the decision was physician-driven, patient-led, or shared.

CONCLUSION

The transplant decision-making discussion is complex. Identification of similar content areas used by hematologists can be used as the basis for a communication tool to help hematologists discuss allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with patients.

Consenting rather than choosing. A qualitative study on overseas patients' decision to undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

OBJECTIVE

Reasons for patients' acceptance of the allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) proposed and how their decision may be affected by the long distances involved have not been sufficiently investigated so far. We therefore conducted a qualitative study to identify the factors involved in overseas patients' decision to accept allo-HSCT.

METHODS

In-depth semi-directive interviews were conducted with overseas allo-grafted patients (n = 22), as well as one non-consenting patient and their caregivers (n = 24). Interviews were analyzed taking an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

Respondents stated that their decision to undergo the transplantation was constrained by their feeling of being in a therapeutic impasse, the need for a survival strategy, the need to survive for their family's sake, family and doctors' pressures, and the feeling of being managed. The following factors favoring patients' acceptance were the medical information received, their faith, having a family donor, peer testimonies, and positive representations of the transplantation. Factors against patients' acceptance were geographical distance from home to the transplant center, apprehension of protective isolation, fear of dying, and representations of the graft.

CONCLUSIONS

These factors, such as patient's personal values and representations, need to be weighed up in order to adapt the information exchanged accordingly. Efforts are required to relieve patients' social isolation and improve the means of providing family support.

'First ensure no regret': a decision-theoretic approach to informed consent in clinical practice

Decision theorists recognise that information is valuable only insofar as it has the potential to change a decision. This means that since acquiring more information is time-consuming and sometimes expensive, judgements need to be made about what information is most valuable to acquire, and whether it is worth acquiring at all. In this article I apply this idea to informed consent and argue that the most valuable information relates not to what the best treatment option may be but to possible futures a patient may regret. I conclude by proposing a regret-minimisation framework for informed consent that I contend better captures the true nature of shared decision making than existing formulations.

Investigating and Supporting Patient and Caregiver Sensemaking in Complex Medical Decisions Using Participatory Design

Background. Patients and caregivers facing complex health decisions must make sense of unfamiliar, emotionally challenging information and experiences. For patients with hematological malignancy, bone marrow transplant (BMT) may be the best chance for a cure but has significant risk of morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to investigate and support patient and caregiver sensemaking as they consider BMT. Methods. Ten BMT patients and 5 caregivers engaged in remote participatory design (PD) workshops. Participants drew timelines of their memorable experiences leading up to BMT. Then, they used transparency paper to annotate their timelines and design improvements to this process. Results. Thematic analysis of drawings and transcripts revealed a 3-phase sensemaking process. In phase 1, participants were introduced to BMT and understood it as a possibility, not an inevitability. In phase 2, they focused on meeting prerequisites including remission and donor identification. Participants came to believe they needed transplant, consequently describing BMT not as a decision between viable options, but that transplant was their "only chance" for survival. In phase 3, participants attended an orientation detailing the extensive risks of transplant, leading to anxiety and doubt. Participants designed solutions that provided reassurance to those grappling with the life-altering impacts of transplant. Conclusions. For patients and caregivers navigating complex health decisions, sensemaking is a dynamic, ongoing process that affects expectations and emotional well-being. Interventions targeting reassurance alongside risk information can alleviate emotional impact and facilitate expectation development. The integration of PD and sensemaking methodologies enables participants to create holistic, tangible representations of experiences while empowering stakeholder engagement in intervention design. This method could be applied to other complex medical contexts to understand lived experiences and develop effective support interventions.

Highlights

Bone marrow transplant patients and caregivers experienced an evolving, emotionally challenging process of gradually understanding the transplant procedure and its risks.The solutions that participants designed centered on providing reassurance alongside risk information, suggesting future interventions could target emotional support as patients attempt to meet prerequisites and grapple with the risks of the potentially curative procedure.By viewing the challenges of complex medical decisions in terms of sensemaking and applying visual methods such as participatory design, researchers can facilitate expression of the dynamic, multifaceted, emotional components of experience and empower stakeholder involvement in intervention design.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on the Impacts of Unpredictability for Patient Sensemaking: Implications for Intervention Design

Patients facing situations with significant unpredictability are met with challenges to expectation formation and preparation. One such context with unpredictable clinical outcomes is bone marrow transplant (BMT) for patients with hematologic malignancies. To understand the experience of unpredictability and opportunities for intervention, semi-structured interviews with patients who had received BMT (n  =  7) and transplant providers (n  =  8) were conducted. Thematic analysis revealed conflict between the necessity of expectation formation and the unpredictability of transplant. Providers described a tension between adequately informing patients of potential risks of transplant and presenting so much information as to create unnecessary anxiety in patients. Patients described issues with outcome unpredictability (not knowing what particular complications they would experience) and temporal unpredictability (not knowing when complications would appear). Patients struggled to make sense of unexpected complications and resulting limitations post-BMT and plan for the future amid the nonlinear recovery timeline. The challenges of unpredictability warrant a support solution that enables patient sensemaking in their evolving illness journey and facilitates adaptation to new circumstances.

Response-An Extreme Ordeal: Writing Emotion in Qualitative Research

Responding to the stimulus afforded by Little et al.'s "Pragmatic pluralism: Mutual tolerance of contested understandings between orthodox and alternative practitioners in autologous stem cell transplantation," this paper explores how the norms of qualitative inquiry affect the representation of emotion in research reports. It describes a conflict between the construction of emotion in qualitative research accounts and its application to analysis and theorization, whose origins may lie in researchers' reticence when it comes to conveying or using the emotional features of data. The technical aspects of report writing that are associated with this conflict are explored via a deconstruction of Little et al.'s paper and a survey of the qualitative research methods literature. Writing to convey emotion and analysing to include author-constructed emotional context are neglected topics. Using data in Little et al.'s text, the paper demonstrates the importance of author-constructed emotional context to theory generation. The paper recommends the inclusion of emotional context as data in analysis and points to lessons Little et al.'s paper offers in the areas of narrative technique and reflexive practice.

Development of a Patient Reported Measure of Experimental Transplants with HIV and Ethics in the United States (PROMETHEUS)

BACKGROUND

Transplantation of HIV-positive (HIV+) donor organs for HIV+ recipients (HIV D+/R+) is now being performed as research in the United States, but raises ethical concerns. While patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used to evaluate clinical interventions, there is no published measure to aptly capture patients' experiences in the unique context of experimental HIV D+/R+ transplantation. Therefore, we developed PROMETHEUS (patient-reported measure of experimental transplants with HIV and ethics in the United States). To do so, we created a conceptual framework, drafted a pilot battery using existing and new measures related to this context, and refined it based on cognitive and pilot testing. PROMETHEUS was administered 6-months post-transplant in a clinical trial evaluating these transplants. We analyzed data from the first 20 patient-participants for reliability and validity by calculating Cronbach's alpha and reviewing item performance characteristics.

RESULTS

PROMETHEUS 1.0 consisted of 29 items with 5 putative subscales: Emotions; Trust; Decision Making; Transplant; and Decision Satisfaction. Overall, responses were positive. Cronbach's alpha was > 0.8 for all subscales except Transplant, which was 0.38. Two Transplant subscale items were removed due to poor reliability and construct validity.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed PROMETHEUS to systematically capture patient-reported experiences with this novel experimental transplantation program, nested it in an actual clinical trial, and obtained preliminary data regarding its performance.

Is 'informed consent' an 'understood consent' in hematopoietic cell transplantation?

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a complex and highly specialized medical treatment that is associated with significant risks, including death. Furthermore, transplantation is offered to patients who often have no other curative treatment alternatives. The routine-consent process for HCT typically occurs before HCT and is influenced by many factors related to patients, physicians and the transplant per se. These factors can impede the consent process and subsequently result in a failure of proper engagement in and an understanding of the procedure with resultant adverse consequences influencing patients and even the patient-physician relationship. We contend that informed consent is a dynamic and ongoing process and that better patient education can assist in the decision making, fulfill the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and engage the patient to maximize compliance and adherence to therapy. This manuscript reviews the key literature pertaining to the decision-making and consent process in HCT and proposes guidelines for improving the consent process. Strategies for improving patient comprehension, engagement and enhancing consent forms are discussed.

Trouble in the gap: a bioethical and sociological analysis of informed consent for high-risk medical procedures

Concerns are frequently raised about the extent to which formal consent procedures actually lead to "informed" consent. As part of a study of consent to high-risk medical procedures, we analyzed in-depth interviews with 16 health care professionals working in bone-marrow transplantation in Sydney, Australia. We find that these professionals recognize and act on their responsibility to inform and educate patients and that they expect patients to reciprocate these efforts by demonstrably engaging in the education process. This expectation is largely implicit, however, and when it is not met, this can give rise to trouble that can have adverse consequences for patients, physicians, and relationships within the clinic. We revisit the concept of the sick role to formalize this new role expectation, and we argue that "informed" consent is a process that is usually incomplete, despite trappings and assumptions that help to create the illusion of completeness.

What Is Shared in Shared Decision Making? Complex Decisions When the Evidence Is Unclear

Patient involvement in decisions is central to patient-centered care. Yet many important decisions must be made in complex, ambiguous clinical situations in which all possible options cannot be known, evidence is inadequate to inform patients’ preferences fully, and/or patients are unclear about their desired level of involvement. In these situations, preferences are shaped by affect, framing, and “collaborative cognition” among clinicians, patients, and their families; thus, decisions are often relational, dynamic, iterative, provisional, and/or conditional. Clinicians can help patients achieve greater autonomy by engaging both intuitive and deliberative decision-making processes (“whole mind”) and involving others in exploring, clarifying, and co-constructing patients’ preferences (“shared mind”). Clinical and interpersonal relationships can promote effective decision making through developing a shared attentional focus, tailoring information, and identifying conditions under which provisional preferences might change. Information technology and health systems offer untapped potential to deepen the relationships and conversations within which decisions are made.

Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures in central Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered the most important step in clinical interventions. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the quality of informed consent for invasive procedures with regard to consent process and information given about risks and alternative treatments, and (2) to determine patients' attitude toward informed consent at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted of 162 adult patients in different wards after undergoing surgery or invasive procedures within 1-2 days of signing the informed consent, using a previously validated interview questionnaire. Data on patients' characteristics, type of invasive procedure, and some informed consent-related issues were collected. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of the percentage mean score of quality of informed consent, and significance was considered at P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The quality of informed consent was generally poor (% mean score = 50.98 ± 17.49). About two-thirds of patients were told during the informed consent process that they have to sign merely as routine, 48% thought that if they refused the treatment plan they would lose the interest of the treating physician to help them, 42% thought that by saying no they would lose the good relationship with their physician, and 42.6% were not interested in having a copy of the informed consent document. Significantly higher quality was predicted when the physicians were the ones who explained the informed consent (t = 4.15, P < 0.001) and when informed consent was explained to younger patients (t = 2.754, P = 0.007). The overall attitude of the patients toward the process of informed consent was satisfactory (% mean score = 76.31 ± 7.63).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest either that patients are not aware of their rights or that physician paternalism is practiced in Saudi Arabia. Cultural barriers should not be an argument to diminish the role of informed consent. Further studies should focus on how the value of autonomy can be appreciated in the Saudi culture.

"I had already made up my mind": patients and caregivers' perspectives on making the decision to participate in research at a US cancer referral center

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic cell transplants (HCTs) are associated with high morbidity and mortality, which complicate the decision-making process for people considering HCT clinical trials. There is a lack of research examining longitudinally how patients make clinical trial participation decisions in US cancer referral centers.

OBJECTIVE

A qualitative study was conducted to examine how patients and their family caregivers decide to participate in HCT research at a US cancer referral center.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 25 patients enrolled in early-stage phase 2 HCT research studies and with 20 family caregivers. Interviews were conducted before HCT and approximately days 80 and 365 after HCT.

RESULTS

Most patients (92%) and their caregivers (75%) decided to participate in research well before consent conferences at the cancer referral center. Patients' reasons for deciding to participate included having "no other option," seeking a cure, and following their home oncologists' recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Currently, US researchers are primarily guided by Federal regulations that view the decision-making process as a cognitive one. Findings confirmed cognition was a part of consent; however, most patients made the decision to participate in high-risk clinical trials long before they had been apprised of the specific information about the study and before the consent conference.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The high risk of death from the disease and/or the HCT underscored the emotional component of decision making and affirmed that researchers need to acknowledge this emotional component to meet the ethical imperative of providing "informed consent."

Decision making in a crowded room: the relational significance of social roles in decisions to proceed with allogeneic stem cell transplantation

Researchers studying health care decision making generally focus on the interaction that unfolds between patients and health professionals. Using the example of allogeneic bone marrow transplant, in this article we identify decision making to be a relational process concurrently underpinned by patients' engagement with health professionals, their families, and broader social networks. We argue that the person undergoing a transplant simultaneously reconciles numerous social roles throughout treatment decision making, each of which encompasses a system of mutuality, reciprocity, and obligation. As individuals enter through the doorway of the consultation room and become "patients," they do not leave their roles as parents, spouses, and citizens outside in the hallway. Rather, these roles and their relational counterpoints--family members, friends, and colleagues--continue to sit alongside the patient role during clinical interactions. As such, the places that doctors and patients discuss diagnosis and treatment become "crowded rooms" of decision making.