The effect of giving information in advance on the clinical training of medical students.

OBJECTIVE: To study whether or not giving written information in advance influences patients' willingness to participate in the clinical training of medical students. SETTING: Dermatology surgery at a university hospital. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: Prior to the visit, patients were randomly allocated either to receive a letter about medical education (the experiment group), or not to receive a letter (the control group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The willingness of patients to participate in clinical training. RESULTS: There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding their willingness to participate. Almost all patients perceived the provided information as good or rather good, but some patients, especially in the control group, did not feel free to refuse to participate. CONCLUSION: The present written-information-in-advance strategy seems to prevent patients from feeling forced to participate, without having any negative influence on their inclination to participate.

Informed consent for clinical education--randomized study of two different strategies at a urology surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To study whether or not the provision of written information in advance might influence patients' inclination to participate in the clinical education of medical students at a urology surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 169 outpatients referred to the urological surgery were randomly allocated either to receive information in advance or not, together with a notice of appointment that all patients receive by mail approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit. Patients in the experimental group received a written information letter in advance about medical education, whereas the control patients did not receive any written information, according to the standard procedure of the surgery. The patients were not told about the study until afterwards and neither the doctors/teachers nor the students knew in advance to which group a certain patient had been allocated. At the end of the visit the patients were asked to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS: The randomization procedure resulted in 83 patients being informed in advance and 86 control patients not being informed. Forty-two patients completed the questionnaire: 19 in the experimental group and 23 in the control group. There was no difference between the groups with regard to reasons for dropping out. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the provision of information in advance does not negatively influence patients' inclination to participate in the clinical training of medical students.