2021
DOI: 10.4067/s1726-569x2021000100037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevalence and Quality of Informed Consent for Patients Undergoing Cosmetic Procedures: A Cross Sectional Study

Abstract: Background: Failure of the physician to disclose potential risks and benefits associated with cosmetic procedures is one of the main causes of legal disputes over informed consent. The objective was to assess the prevalence and quality of the informed consent given by patients who undergone cosmetic procedures and its association with post-procedure adverse events. Methods: It was a crosssectional, online, questionnaire-based study conducted during September and October 2020. Eligible adult male and female pat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 25 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In terms of the trust, some patients trusted the doctor to make decisions on their behalf, while others required more independent decision-making and preferably more effective disclosure of information. In addition, there was an overall poor quality of informed consent process and administration, knowledge of the risks of intervention and alternative treatment, and insufficient information included in informed consent [ 50 , 52 , 53 , 58 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of the trust, some patients trusted the doctor to make decisions on their behalf, while others required more independent decision-making and preferably more effective disclosure of information. In addition, there was an overall poor quality of informed consent process and administration, knowledge of the risks of intervention and alternative treatment, and insufficient information included in informed consent [ 50 , 52 , 53 , 58 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%