Prospective Randomized Controlled Study on the Efficacy of Multimedia Informed Consent for Patients Scheduled to Undergo Green-Light High-Performance System Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate.
10.5534/wjmh.2016.34.1.47
- Author:
Dong Yeub HAM
1
;
Woo Suk CHOI
;
Sang Hoon SONG
;
Young Joon AHN
;
Hyoung Keun PARK
;
Hyeong Gon KIM
;
Hwancheol SON
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Randomized Controlled Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Informed consent;
Multimedia;
Prostate;
Prostatic hyperplasia;
Surgical procedures, operative
- MeSH:
Education;
Humans;
Informed Consent*;
Male;
Multimedia*;
Prospective Studies*;
Prostate*;
Prostatic Hyperplasia;
Surgical Procedures, Operative;
Volatilization*
- From:The World Journal of Men's Health
2016;34(1):47-55
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a multimedia informed consent (IC) presentation on the understanding and satisfaction of patients who were scheduled to receive 120-W green-light high-performance system photoselective vaporization of the prostate (HPS-PVP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multimedia IC (M-IC) presentation for HPS-PVP was developed. Forty men with benign prostatic hyperplasia who were scheduled to undergo HPS-PVP were prospectively randomized to a conventional written IC group (W-IC group, n=20) or the M-IC group (n=20). The allocated IC was obtained by one certified urologist, followed by a 15-question test (maximum score, 15) to evaluate objective understanding, and questionnaires on subjective understanding (range, 0~10) and satisfaction (range, 0~10) using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics, including age and the highest level of education, did not significantly differ between the two groups. No significant differences were found in scores reflecting the objective understanding of HPS-PVP (9.9±2.3 vs. 10.6±2.8, p=0.332) or in subjective understanding scores (7.5±2.1 vs. 8.6±1.7, p=0.122); however, the M-IC group showed higher satisfaction scores than the W-IC group (7.4±1.7 vs. 8.4±1.5, p=0.033). After adjusting for age and educational level, the M-IC group still had significantly higher satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: M-IC did not enhance the objective knowledge of patients regarding this surgical procedure. However, it improved the satisfaction of patients with the IC process itself.
