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

• Published in: The world journal of men's health Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. 47 - 55
• Main Authors: Ham, Dong Yeub, Choi, Woo Suk, Song, Sang Hoon, Ahn, Young-Joon, Park, Hyoung Keun, Kim, Hyeong Gon, Son, Hwancheol
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology 01.04.2016; 대한남성과학회
• Subjects: Decision making; Disease; Education; Hypotheses; Informed consent; Middle schools; Multimedia; operative; Original; Patients; Prostate; Prostatic hyperplasia; Questionnaires; Surgery; Surgical procedures; Urology; 비뇨기과학; United States > US; Multimedia; Informed consent; Prostatic hyperplasia; Surgical procedures, operative; Prostate
• ISSN: 2287-4208; 2287-4690
• DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.2016.34.1.47

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). 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. 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. 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.