PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Disclosure”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources
PubMed1990

Patients may not recall disclosure of risk of death: implications for informed consent.

This study examined the issue of rational decision-making involved in the 'patient need' standard of informed consent. A majority of elective cholecystectomy patients (90% of 144) correctly identified their risk of death on a multiple choice questionnaire after preoperative counselling, but before surgery. However, many of those patients who answered correctly (54%) reported that they were not informed about the risk of death when questioned again after discharge. An attempt to discriminate patients who reported being informed from those who did not using measures of preoperative pain, emotional distress and medication was not successful. Faced with an inability to obtain informed consent from some patients, coupled with legal liability for failing to do so, surgeons are advised to obtain consent in writing, to provide comprehensive, multi-media counselling, and to be particularly conscientious with confused patients and those with complications.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

Disclosure of imaging findings to patients directly by radiologists: survey of patients' preferences.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if patients prefer to have radiologists tell them imaging findings immediately after the examination or if they prefer to hear the results later from their referring physician. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A simple questionnaire was devised and distributed to 261 consecutive patients in the radiology department of a large university hospital. During a 10-day period, patients seen in several departmental sections (gastrointestinal, genitourinary, CT, sonography, mammography, chest, musculoskeletal) completed the questionnaire. Patients were asked if they wanted the radiologist to tell them if the results were normal; if the results were abnormal; if they would prefer to hear the results from their family doctor, internist, or other primary care provider; and if they felt entitled to an explanation of their test results. Results were tabulated and expressed as percentages. RESULTS: Analysis of the 261 questionnaires disclosed that 92% of patients wanted the radiologist to tell them if the results are normal. An additional 7% answered "Yes, but only if I ask." If the results are abnormal (cancer, for example), 87% wanted the radiologist to tell them. An additional 7% answered "Yes, but only if I ask." CONCLUSION: Our results show that most patients prefer to hear the results of imaging examinations from the radiologist at the time of the procedure rather than to hear them later from the referring physician, regardless of the findings.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed1999

Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet.

BACKGROUND: Authorship disputes and abuses have increased in recent years. In response to a proposal that researcher contributions be specified for readers, The Lancet began disclosing such contributions at the end of original articles. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the descriptions researchers use for their contributions and to determine how the order of names on the byline corresponds to these contributions, whether persons listed on the byline fulfill a lenient version of the criteria for authorship specified by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the Vancouver Group), and whether the contributions of persons listed as contributors overlap with the contributions of those who are acknowledged. DESIGN: Descriptive study. MEASUREMENTS: A taxonomy of researchers' contributions was developed and applied to researchers' self-reported contributions to original research articles published in The Lancet from July to December 1997. RESULTS: Contributors lists occupied little page space (mean, 2.5 cm of column length). Placement on the byline did not indicate the specific category of task performed, although the first-contributor position corresponded to a significantly greater number of contributions (mean numbers of contributions: first-contributor position, 3.23; second-contributor position, 2.51; third-contributor position, 2.20; and fourth-contributor position, 2.51) (P < 0.01). Forty-four percent of contributors on the byline did not fulfill a lenient version of the Vancouver Group's criteria for authorship. Sixty percent of the most common categories of activities described on contributors lists overlapped with those on acknowledgements lists. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of lists that specify contributions to research articles is feasible and seems to impart important information. The criteria for authorship outlined by the Vancouver Group do not seem to be congruent with the self-identified contributions of researchers.

Authorship↗
PubMed1991

The so-called 'therapeutic privilege' or 'contra-indication': its nature and role in non-disclosure cases.

This article critically examines the nature, scope and application of the so-called 'therapeutic privilege' or 'contra-indication' as a defence to a failure to procure an informed consent to medical interventions. This is done within the context of the doctor's legal-ethical duty to inform his patient of the diagnosis and treatment on the hand and his sometimes conflicting medico-ethical duty to heal on the other, with special reference to the application of the defence in cases of solicited information and lie-telling.

Disclosure↗