Cortés SJC, Alemán DMI

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 200-208
PDF size: 262.17 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: informed consent is an essential ethical process in orthopedic practice, particularly in diagnostic studies preceding surgical decision-making in spine surgery. Objective: to evaluate the quality of informed consent used in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in Mexican institutions. Material and methods: a descriptive, cross-sectional study with quantitative-qualitative approach was conducted. Twenty consent forms from public (IMSS, ISSSTE) and private institutions, both local and out-of-state, were analyzed. Two validated instruments assessed completeness of information, expected level of understanding, and sociodemographic variables. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were applied (p < 0.05). Results: all evaluated forms (100%) omitted information regarding MRI technology and technical aspects. Public institutions showed absolute non-compliance (100%) in critical aspects such as risks, indications, and study quality. Private institutions demonstrated partial compliance (28%) in selected items. No statistically significant differences were found by geographic location (p = 0.3728). Conclusions: structural deficiencies exist in the quality of informed consent for contrast-enhanced MRI in Mexico. This gap between regulation and practice compromises patient autonomy and may impact therapeutic decision-making in spine surgery.

REFERENCES

1. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th ed. Barcelona: Masson; 2019. p. 113-172. Disponible en: https://www.scribd.com/document/198887124/PRINCIPIOS-DE-ETICA-BIOMEDICA-Beauchamp

2. Porfirio de Sá Lima ÉP. Legal nature of informed consent in the light of the Spanish and Brazilian models of patient protection. Rev Derecho Priv. 2017; 32: 473-489. doi: 10.18601/01234366.n32.16. Available from: https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpri/article/view/5034

3. Varkey B. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pract. 2021; 30: 17-28. doi: 10.1159/000509119.

4. Scalia G, Priola SM, Ranganathan S, Venkataram T, Orestano V, Marrone S, et al. Assessing the impact of mixed reality-assisted informed consent: a study protocol. Surg Neurol Int. 2024; 15: 1-8. doi: 10.25259/SNI_1021_2023.

5. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.

6. Palazzani L. Informed consent, experimentation and emerging ethical problems. BioLaw J. 2019; 1: 11-22. doi: 10.15168/2284-4503-488.

7. Comisión Nacional de Arbitraje Médico. Consentimiento válidamente informado. 2da ed. México: CONAMED; 2016. p. 55-59. Disponible en: https://.conamed.gob.mx/gobmx/libros/pdf/libro_cvi2aEd.pdf

8. Vázquez GAR, Ramírez BÉJ, Vázquez RJA, Cota GF, Gutiérrez MJA. Consentimiento informado. ¿Requisito legal o ético? Cir Gen. 2017; 39: 175-182.

9. Grant SC. Informed consent—We can and should do better. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4: e2110848. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10848.

10. Gabay G, Bokek-Cohen Y. What do patients want? Surgical informed consent and patient-centered care. Bioethics. 2020; 34: 467-477. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12703.

11. Brown R, Bylund CL, Siminoff LA, Slovin SF. Seeking informed consent to Phase I cancer clinical trials: identifying oncologists' communication strategies. Psychooncology. 2011; 20: 361-368. doi: 10.1002/pon.1729.

12. Yu QJ, Pun J. Promoting patient engagement in medical informed consent. Health Commun. 2023; 38: 71-79. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2021.1932287.

13. Pietrzykowski T, Smilowska K. The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension. Trials. 2021; 22: 57. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04969-w.

14. Guyer P. Kant on the theory and practice of autonomy. Soc Philos Policy. 2003; 20: 70-98. doi: 10.1017/s026505250320203x.

15. Weckbach S, Kocak T, Reichel H, Lattig F. A survey on patients' knowledge and expectations during informed consent for spinal surgery. Patient Saf Surg. 2016; 10: 15. doi: 10.1186/s13037-016-0103-z.

16. Laitinen A, Sahlgren O. AI systems and respect for human autonomy. Front Artif Intell. 2021; 4: 151. doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.705164.

17. Angell M. Ethical imperialism? Ethics in international collaborative clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319: 1081-1083. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198810203191608.

18. MacMillan J. Comparison of interactive electronic versus standard document method for obtaining patient informed consent [Tesis doctoral]. Houston: UT School of Public Health; 2020.

19. Joffe S, Truog RD. Consent to medical care: the importance of fiduciary context. In: Miller FG, Wertheimer A, editors. The ethics of consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 1-15.

20. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 4: CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5.

21. Hernández-Ruiz A, Delgado-Fernández RI, Mitjans-Fuentes CO, González-Volta R, Cuní-Rivera T, Díaz-González D. Calidad de los formatos escritos del consentimiento informado en pacientes graves. Arch Méd Camagüey. 2020; 24: 40-53.

22. Glaser J, Nouri S, Fernandez A, et al. Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures. Med Decis Making. 2020; 40: 119-143. doi: 10.1177/0272989X19896348.

23. Ryan R, Prictor M, McLaughlin KJ, Hill S. Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; 1: CD003717. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003717.pub2.

24. Wagner D, Bear M. Patient satisfaction with nursing care: a concept analysis within a nursing framework. J Adv Nurs. 2009; 65: 692-701. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04866.x.

25. Krishnamurti T, Argo N. A patient-centered approach to informed consent: results from a survey and randomized trial. Med Decis Making. 2016; 36: 726-740. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16636844.