Cleft PalateNCT02595307
Improving Informed Consent for Cleft Palate Repair
A study testing Pamphlet in people with Cleft Palate and Jaw Abnormalities, run by IWK Health Centre at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
To determine if providing a written document in addition to the standard oral discussion of surgical risks improves risk recall for the parents/guardians of a child seen in consultation for cleft palate surgery, and if this has any effect on overall satisfaction after the procedure Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 16 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Cleft Palate, Jaw Abnormalities, Maxillofacial Abnormalities
- What is being tested?
- Pamphlet
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- May 2014to Dec 2017
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 16 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Parents/guardians of a child referred to the IWK Cleft Palate Clinic for primary cleft palate repair surgery
Who cannot join
- Inability to fluently communicate in English
- Inability to read at a grade 8 level
- Inability to provide informed consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
IWK Health Center
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3K 6R8
Bev White, (902) 470-8520, bev.white@iwk.nshealth.ca
Michael Bezuhly, MD FRCSC
About this study
Official title: Role of a Written Summary on Risk Recall During Consent Process for Cleft Palate Repair
To determine if providing a written document in addition to the standard oral discussion of surgical risks improves risk recall for the parents/guardians of a child seen in consultation for cleft palate surgery, and if this has any effect on overall satisfaction after the procedure
Read the detailed description
The current standard of care as it relates to informed consent in the pediatric population involves providing the parents or guardians of the child undergoing surgery with an oral discussion prior to the surgical procedure. However, providing parents with an oral discussion alone may be insufficient in the informed consent process as it has been shown that oral information tends to be retained poorly and crucial pieces of information tend to be forgotten. Conversely, it has been shown that properly informed patients are more satisfied, have a higher commitment to their treatment, and demonstrate less tendency toward filing legal claims. Furthermore, written material may help reduce anxiety in patients facing stressful events, such as surgery, and have been linked with overall improvement in satisfaction with their treatment
The investigators hypothesize that providing a written document in conjunction with the standard oral discussion improves the participants' risk recall in the informed consent process for their child's cleft palate repair surgery and increases their subjective satisfaction with the operation.
- Conditions
- Cleft Palate, Jaw Abnormalities, Maxillofacial Abnormalities, Mouth Abnormalities, Congenital Abnormalities, Jaw Diseases
- Being tested
- Pamphlet
- Keywords
- Risk Recall, Pamphlet, Brochure, Patient satisfaction, Informed Consent
- Medical subject headings
- Cleft Palate, Jaw Abnormalities, Maxillofacial Abnormalities, Mouth Abnormalities, Congenital Abnormalities, Jaw Diseases, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Craniofacial Abnormalities
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PamphletBehavioural
Written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Pamphlet | Experimental | Participant group that will receive a written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation. Receives: Behavioral: Pamphlet |
| No Pamphlet | No intervention | Patient group that will not receive a written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of risks recalled
The number of risks that are recalled by the patient at a 3 week follow up phone call.
Measured: 3 weeks
Secondary outcomes (1)
Participant Satisfaction as measured with the visual-analogue scale
Participants' perceived satisfaction with the procedure as measured with the visual-analogue scale.
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Nov 2015 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2014
- Primary completionSep 2017 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2017 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cleft PalateStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- IWK Health Centre
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Michael Bezuhly, MD FRCSC, Principal investigator, IWK Health Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02595307
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1015947
- Status last verified
- Mar 2017
- First submitted
- 2 Nov 2015
- Last updated
- 8 Mar 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Aggregate results only will be shared.
Publications
Aremu SK, Alabi BS, Segun-Busari S. The role of informed consent in risks recall in otorhinolaryngology surgeries: verbal (nonintervention) vs written (intervention) summaries of risks. Am J Otolaryngol. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(6):485-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2010.09.012. Epub 2010 Nov 19.
PubMed 21093107Nadeau DP, Rich JN, Brietzke SE. Informed consent in pediatric surgery: Do parents understand the risks? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Mar;136(3):265-9. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.5.
PubMed 20231645Lavelle-Jones C, Byrne DJ, Rice P, Cuschieri A. Factors affecting quality of informed consent. BMJ. 1993 Apr 3;306(6882):885-90. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6882.885.
PubMed 8490411Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Houterman S, Veerman M, Legemaate J, Scheltinga MR. A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands. Patient Saf Surg. 2013 Jan 21;7(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-4.
PubMed 23336609Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MR, Spauwen PH, van der Wilt GJ. A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg. 2010 Jul;34(7):1406-15. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0542-0.
PubMed 20372902Chan Y, Irish JC, Wood SJ, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Gullane PJ, Lockwood GA. Patient education and informed consent in head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002 Nov;128(11):1269-74. doi: 10.1001/archotol.128.11.1269.
PubMed 12431168Siau D, List RJ, Hussin N, Woolford TJ. Do printed information leaflets improve recall of the procedure and risks in adult tonsillectomy? How we do it. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010 Dec;35(6):503-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02227.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 21199416
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Mar 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Role of a Written Summary on Risk Recall During Consent Process for Cleft Palate Repair
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02595307
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1015947
- Conditions
- Cleft Palate, Jaw Abnormalities, Maxillofacial Abnormalities, Mouth Abnormalities, Congenital Abnormalities, Jaw Diseases
- Keywords
- Risk Recall, Pamphlet, Brochure, Patient satisfaction, Informed Consent
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- IWK Health CentreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- May 2014
- Primary completion
- Sep 2017 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2017 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Nov 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To determine if providing a written document in addition to the standard oral discussion of surgical risks improves risk recall for the parents/guardians of a child seen in consultation for cleft palate surgery, and if this has any effect on overall satisfaction after the procedure
Detailed description
The current standard of care as it relates to informed consent in the pediatric population involves providing the parents or guardians of the child undergoing surgery with an oral discussion prior to the surgical procedure. However, providing parents with an oral discussion alone may be insufficient in the informed consent process as it has been shown that oral information tends to be retained poorly and crucial pieces of information tend to be forgotten. Conversely, it has been shown that properly informed patients are more satisfied, have a higher commitment to their treatment, and demonstrate less tendency toward filing legal claims. Furthermore, written material may help reduce anxiety in patients facing stressful events, such as surgery, and have been linked with overall improvement in satisfaction with their treatment
The investigators hypothesize that providing a written document in conjunction with the standard oral discussion improves the participants' risk recall in the informed consent process for their child's cleft palate repair surgery and increases their subjective satisfaction with the operation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Pamphlet | Experimental | Behavioral: PamphletParticipant group that will receive a written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation. |
| No Pamphlet | No intervention | –Patient group that will not receive a written pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 16 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Parents/guardians of a child referred to the IWK Cleft Palate Clinic for primary cleft palate repair surgery
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Inability to fluently communicate in English
- Inability to read at a grade 8 level
- Inability to provide informed consent
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PamphletWritten pamphlet outlining the risks of surgery as discussed in consultation. | Behavioural | Pamphlet |
Primary outcome
Number of risks recalled
Time frame: 3 weeks
The number of risks that are recalled by the patient at a 3 week follow up phone call.
1 secondary outcome
Participant Satisfaction as measured with the visual-analogue scale
Time frame: 3 months
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Mar 2017.
- Background: PubMed 21093107Aremu SK, Alabi BS, Segun-Busari S. The role of informed consent in risks recall in otorhinolaryngology surgeries: verbal (nonintervention) vs written (intervention) summaries of risks. Am J Otolaryngol. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(6):485-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2010.09.012. Epub 2010 Nov 19.
- Background: PubMed 20231645Nadeau DP, Rich JN, Brietzke SE. Informed consent in pediatric surgery: Do parents understand the risks? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010 Mar;136(3):265-9. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.5.
- Background: PubMed 8490411Lavelle-Jones C, Byrne DJ, Rice P, Cuschieri A. Factors affecting quality of informed consent. BMJ. 1993 Apr 3;306(6882):885-90. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6882.885.
- Background: PubMed 23336609Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Houterman S, Veerman M, Legemaate J, Scheltinga MR. A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands. Patient Saf Surg. 2013 Jan 21;7(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1754-9493-7-4.
- Background: PubMed 20372902Leclercq WK, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MR, Spauwen PH, van der Wilt GJ. A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg. 2010 Jul;34(7):1406-15. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0542-0.
- Background: PubMed 12431168Chan Y, Irish JC, Wood SJ, Rotstein LE, Brown DH, Gullane PJ, Lockwood GA. Patient education and informed consent in head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002 Nov;128(11):1269-74. doi: 10.1001/archotol.128.11.1269.
- Background: PubMed 21199416Siau D, List RJ, Hussin N, Woolford TJ. Do printed information leaflets improve recall of the procedure and risks in adult tonsillectomy? How we do it. Clin Otolaryngol. 2010 Dec;35(6):503-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2010.02227.x. No abstract available.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Aggregate results only will be shared.
Related trials for Cleft Palate
Not yet recruiting
Comparative Study of Regional Nerve Blocks in Primary Cleft Palate Repair
Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate +/- Lip
Not yet recruiting
Quadratus Lumborum Block for Iliac Bone Harvest in Pediatric Cleft Alveolus Repair
Cleft Lip Palate
Not yet recruiting
Furlow With Buccinator and Fistula Formation
Cleft Palate
RecruitingPhase 3
Nebulized Bupivacaine Analgesia for Cleft Palate Repair
Cleft Palate
RecruitingObservational study
Perceptions of High and Low Intensity Speech Intervention in Children With a Cleft Palate
Cleft Lip and Palate, Cleft Palate Children
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Michael Bezuhly, MD FRCSC principal investigator
IWK Health Centre
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Pamphlet in people with Cleft Palate and Jaw Abnormalities, run by IWK Health Centre at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Mar 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Michael Bezuhly, MD FRCSC (902-470-8168, Michael.Bezuhly@iwk.nshealth.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of risks recalled (time frame: 3 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02595307, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Mar 2017; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 27 Oct 2026.