Rehearsal's effect on long-term recall and comprehension of orthodontic informed consent.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine if written rehearsal of informed consent improved 6-month recall and comprehension compared with the current best practices. METHODS: A consultation was provided and subjects read the modified informed consent document. They were randomized to group A (received the core and up to 4 custom elements of treatment, wrote what each image displayed) or group B (presentation of the 18 elements with core elements chunked at the end followed by up to 4 custom elements). Interviews recording knowledge recall/comprehension occurred immediately and after months later. RESULTS: Overall, no significant differences in baseline or 6-month follow-up scores were found between groups. Initially, group A outperformed group B in some core domains. There were no significant differences between groups in the change of scores from initial to follow-up. Follow-up scores were significantly lower than baseline scores (P <0.05). Higher initial scores were associated with larger drops at follow-up. A decrease in knowledge >20% was common. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the methods are comparable at baseline and 6-months. Initial content retention was roughly 60+%, with 6%-9% deterioration. For areas of treatment methods, risk, discomfort, and resorption at 6-months, the current processes failed the patient and left the practitioner vulnerable to risk management issues. Results support the rehearsal method with immediate feedback for misunderstandings as the preferred method for informed consent.

Rehearsal's effect on recall and comprehension of orthodontic informed consent.

INTRODUCTION: Proper informed consent allows patients to take an active role in their own treatment decisions, and enhanced compliance might improve treatment outcomes. The objective of this research was to determine if handwritten rehearsal of core and custom consent items would increase short-term recall and comprehension. METHODS: A total of 90 patient-parent pairs were randomly assigned to 2 groups. After case presentation, each subject was provided 10 minutes to read a modified informed consent document. Group A received visual printouts containing the 4 core elements (root resorption, decalcification, pain, and relapse/retention) likely to be encountered by all patients and up to 4 custom elements (eg, impacted teeth, orthognathic surgery, or other case-specific treatment issues). Subjects identified and wrote what the image depicted and how it could affect treatment. Group B viewed a slideshow presentation on all 18 consent elements arranged from general to specific. All participants were interviewed, and each provided their sociodemographic data, as well as completed literacy, health literacy, and state anxiety questionnaires. The groups were compared for recall and comprehension through an analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The rehearsal intervention significantly improved recall and comprehension of the core elements (P = 0.001). Rehearsal also improved custom recall and comprehension, but not significantly. Group B performed significantly better on treatment questions (P = 0.001). Overall, as anxiety increased, correct responses decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The rehearsal group improved recall and comprehension of the core and custom elements of informed consent and proved a more efficient method than an audiovisual presentation to provide informed consent. It also improved meeting legal obligations.

Evaluation of Invisalign treatment effectiveness and efficiency compared with conventional fixed appliances using the Peer Assessment Rating index.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this retrospective case-control study was to compare the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of the Invisalign system with conventional fixed appliances in treating orthodontic patients with mild to moderate malocclusion in a graduate orthodontic clinic. METHODS: Using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index, we evaluated pretreatment and posttreatment records of 48 Invisalign patients and 48 fixed appliances patients. The 2 groups of patients were controlled for general characteristics and initial severity of malocclusion. We analyzed treatment outcome, duration, and improvement between the Invisalign and fixed appliances groups. RESULTS: The average pretreatment PAR scores (United Kingdom weighting) were 20.81 for Invisalign and 22.79 for fixed appliances (P = 1.0000). Posttreatment weighted PAR scores between Invisalign and fixed appliances were not statistically different (P = 0.7420). On average, the Invisalign patients finished 5.7 months faster than did those with fixed appliances (P = 0.0040). The weighted PAR score reduction with treatment was not statistically different between the Invisalign and fixed appliances groups (P = 0.4573). All patients in both groups had more than a 30% reduction in the PAR scores. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the odds of achieving "great improvement" in the Invisalign group were 0.329 times the odds of achieving "great improvement" in the fixed appliances group after controlling for age (P = 0.0150). CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that both Invisalign and fixed appliances were able to improve the malocclusion. Invisalign patients finished treatment faster than did those with fixed appliances. However, it appears that Invisalign may not be as effective as fixed appliances in achieving "great improvement" in a malocclusion. This study might help clinicians to determine appropriate patients for Invisalign treatment.