We have identified efforts by research ers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance  informed consent .
The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge , an important prerequisite for informed consent .
This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable .
Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions .
BACKGROUND Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken .
However , it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can underst and and retain , opportunity to consider their options , and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions .
There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects on patients , clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care .
Combined written and oral information prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy compared with oral information alone: a randomized trial
Background Little is known about how to most effectively deliver relevant information to patients scheduled for endoscopy . Methods To assess the effects of combined written and oral information , compared with oral information alone on the quality of information before endoscopy and the level of anxiety . We design ed a prospect i ve study in two Swiss teaching hospitals which enrolled consecutive patients scheduled for endoscopy over a three-month period . Patients were r and omized either to receiving , along with the appointment notice , an explanatory leaflet about the upcoming examination , or to  oral information delivered by each patient 's doctor .  Evaluation of quality of information was rated on scales between 0 ( none received ) and 5 ( excellent ) . The analysis of outcome variables was performed on the basis of intention to treat- analysis . Multivariate analysis of predictors of information scores was performed by linear regression analysis . Results Of 718 eligible patients 577 ( 80 % ) returned their question naire . Patients who received written leaflets ( N = 278 ) rated the quality of information they received higher than those informed verbally ( N = 299 ) , for all 8 quality -of-information items . Differences were significant regarding information about the risks of the procedure ( 3.24 versus 2.26 , p < 0.001 ) , how to prepare for the procedure ( 3.56 versus 3.23 , p = 0.036 ) , what to expect after the procedure ( 2.99 versus 2.59 , p < 0.001 ) , and the 8 quality -of-information items ( 3.35 versus 3.02 , p = 0.002 ) . The two groups reported similar levels of anxiety before procedure ( p = 0.66 ) , pain during procedure ( p = 0.20 ) , tolerability throughout the procedure ( p = 0.76 ) , problems after the procedure ( p = 0.22 ) , and overall rating of the procedure between poor and excellent ( p = 0.82 ) . Conclusion Written information led to more favourable assessment s of the quality of information and had no impact on patient anxiety nor on the overall assessment of the endoscopy . Because structured and comprehensive written information is perceived as beneficial by patients , gastroenterologists should clearly explain to their patients the risks , benefits and alternatives of endoscopic procedures . Trial registration : Current Controlled trial number : IS RCT N34382782
We have identified efforts by research ers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance  informed consent .
The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge , an important prerequisite for informed consent .
This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable .
Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions .
BACKGROUND Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken .
However , it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can underst and and retain , opportunity to consider their options , and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions .
There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects on patients , clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care .