PubMed · 12946782
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Alistair R Ramsden, Gerald Chodak. 2003. Editorial panel on informed consent for PSA screening.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00270-x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This cross sectional study utilized convenience sampling to investigate the HIV testing intentions of 290 sexually active, male, migrant Latino day laborers, 18 years old or older. The findings indicate that day laborers are indeed at risk for HIV. Nearly two-thirds of the men intended to test for HIV in the next year. Men who were at higher risk of infection from their sexual encounters with female partners were more likely to intend to test, as were men making less money and men who did not perceive themselves to be at risk. Men who attended high school or beyond, and reported using a condom with casual female partners, were much more likely to intend to test than men who did not attend school and reported no such condom use. The prevalence of high risk sex and the low rates of condom use have implications for the increased transmission of HIV.
OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' understanding of the status, function, and remit of written consent to surgery. DESIGN: Prospective questionnaire study. Questionnaires were sent to patients within one month of surgery. Responses were analysed with frequencies and single variable analyses. SETTING: Large teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 732 patients who had undergone surgery in obstetrics and gynaecology over a six month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' awareness of the legal implications of written consent and their views on the function and remit of the consent form. RESULTS: Patients had limited understanding of the legal standing of written consent. Nearly half (46%, 95% confidence interval 43% to 50%) of patients believed the primary function of consent forms was to protect hospitals and 68% (65% to 71%) thought consent forms allowed doctors to assume control. Only 41% (37% to 44%) of patients believed consent forms made their wishes known. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients seem to have limited awareness of the legal implications of signing or not signing consent forms, and they do not recognise written consent as primarily serving their interests. Current consent procedures seem inadequate as a means for the expression of autonomous choice, and their ethical standing and credibility can be called into question.