Evaluation of the readability of informed consent forms used in urology: Is there a difference between open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery?
Mehmet Giray Sönmez1, Betül Kozanhan2, Mehmet Serkan Özkent1, Gökhan Ecer1, Mehmet Salih Boğa3, Erhan Demirelli4, Ahmet Öztürk1
1Department of Urology, Necmettin Erbakan University Meram School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey
2Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, University of Health Sciences Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey
3Department of Urology, Kağıthane State Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
4Department of Urology, Giresun University School of Medicine, Giresun, Turkey
Keywords: Informed consent forms, readability, understandability, urological surgery
Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability levels of informed consent forms (ICFs) used before urological surgery application in Turkey and to compare the readability levels of open, endoscopic and laparoscopic surgical ICFs.
Material and Methods: Five-hundred twenty-nine ICFs used for urological open, endoscopic and laparoscopic surgical procedures were collected from different hospitals in Turkey. Evaluating ICFs which have exactly the same text only once, a total of 69 consent forms were evaluated. Gunning fog and Flesch kincaid formulas measuring the general readability level was used in order to calculate the readability level of ICFs in addition to Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas defined for determining the readability level of Turkish texts. ICFs were evaluated by separating into three groups as open, endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery forms depending on their contents.
Results: Among 69 ICFs evaluated, 35 were open, 19 were endoscopic and 15 were laparoscopic surgery consent forms. Readability level of all ICFs was detected as average according to Ateşman formula, very difficult according to Flesch kincaid formula, difficult according to Gunning fog formula and at high school education level according to Bezirci-Yılmaz. Among the three groups statistical evaluation, a significant difference was not detected in readability level.
Conclusion: In this study, it was detected that ICF readability levels used in urological surgeries in our country was rather low. We think that the cooperation of the concerned institutions is required for the revision of the consent information texts available and the improvement of the texts according to the strategies recommended.
Cite this paper as: Sönmez MG, Kozanhan B, Özkent MS, Ecer G, Boğa MS, Demirelli E, et al. Evaluation of the readability of informed consent forms used in urology: Is there a difference between open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery?. Turk J Surg 2018; 10.5152/turkjsurg.2017.3973.
Authors declared that the research was conducted according to the principles of the World Medical Association eclaration of Helsinki “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects” (amended in October 2013).
Not required in this study.
Concept - M.G.S., B.K.; Design - M.G.S., B.K., M.S.Ö.; Supervision - M.G.S., B.K., A.Ö.; Resource - M.G.S., B.K., M.S.Ö., G.E., M.S.B., E.D., A.Ö.; Materials - M.G.S., B.K., M.S.Ö., G.E., M.S.B., E.D., A.Ö.; Data Collection and/or Processing -M.G.S., B.K.; Analysis and/or Interpretation - M.G.S., B.K., A.Ö.; Literature Search - M.G.S., B.K.; Writing Manuscript - M.G.S., B.K.; Critical Reviews - M.G.S., B.K., A.Ö.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.