A stakeholder-driven approach to improve the informed consent process for palliative chemotherapy.
Andrea C Enzinger, Jennifer K Wind, Elizabeth Frank and 8 others
PMID 28359659WHAT IT FOUND
Patient advocates and clinicians rated a video and booklet for palliative chemotherapy consent highly.
It presented benefits, risks, and optional prognosis information. It has not yet been tested in a randomized trial.
Key findings
01Patient advocates and oncology practitioners rated the video and booklet highly for clarity, balance, tone, and clinical utility.
02Advocates and practitioners preferred prognostic information to be optional rather than a core feature or removed.
03Only 20% (5/25) of practitioners were satisfied with chemotherapy educational materials used in their current practice.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Most acceptability data came from patient advocates and clinicians rather than a broad sample of patients. The practitioner group was small and mostly academic, so it may not reflect community oncology practice. Only five patients completed qualitative interviews, so patient-led refinements rest on a small group. The study tested acceptability and refinement, not whether the intervention improves informed decision-making or patient outcomes.
Declared interests
The work was funded by PCORI (CE-1304-6517) without industry involvement, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the video and booklet improve informed consent or patient outcomes. This paper tested acceptability and refinement, not effectiveness; a randomized trial is ongoing.