AJR Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hopper, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hartzel, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hopper, K. D.
Right arrow Articles by Hartzel, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 162, 531-535, Copyright © 1994 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

The effect of informed consent on the level of anxiety in patients given i.v. contrast material

KD Hopper, PS Houts, TR TenHave, YL Matthews, E Colon, DB Haseman and J Hartzel
Department of Radiology, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey 17033.

OBJECTIVE. A common reason given for not obtaining informed consent before the use of IV contrast material is that the anxiety created by informing patients of potential reactions will increase the possibility of their occurring. However, the idea that this is possible is debatable, and no study of this subject has used a standardized anxiety index. Accordingly, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, we assessed the anxiety level among patients about to have an IV contrast procedure and measured the effect of informing them of the risks associated with the use of contrast material. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Approximately 2050 adult outpatients at three separate medical centers were solicited for participation in this study. Each of the 1251 patients who volunteered to participate was placed into one of six groups. The majority were patients who were awaiting the injection of either ionic or nonionic contrast material and who were or were not informed of the risks associated with the use of IV contrast material. The last two groups were generally healthy outpatients reporting for routine X-rays who were not awaiting IV contrast administration but who were informed of the risks associated with the use of ionic and nonionic contrast material. Each patient informed of the risks was asked to read a standardized consent form, and all patients completed a standardized anxiety index. RESULTS. Patients who were informed of the risks associated with IV contrast material did not have measurably increased anxiety, and they did not have an increased prevalence of adverse reactions. Indeed, the only patients who had statistically significant increased anxiety compared with the other groups were among those awaiting the injection of ionic contrast material who were not informed of the risks (p = .04). The majority (51-78%) of patients in all six groups had measurable elevated anxiety scores. CONCLUSION. We conclude that it is not justified to fail to obtain informed consent in order to avoid anxiety-induced adverse reactions to IV contrast material. The majority of patients awaiting injection of IV contrast material have measurable increased anxiety levels regardless of whether they are informed of its risks.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.