Evaluation of information retention in orthognathic patients Version 1

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    A randomised controlled trial using a questionnaire to evaluate information retention in orthognathic surgery patients across three different communication methods

  • IRAS ID

    353109

  • Contact name

    John Ahn

  • Contact email

    john.ahn@gstt.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    R&D Department, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    1 years, 6 months, 0 days

  • Research summary

    Patient experience and satisfaction are closely tied to the provision of clear and adequate information, particularly in complex treatment pathways like orthognathic surgery. A thorough understanding can reduce patient anxiety, foster trust in the clinician, and promote active engagement in the treatment plan. Additionally, informed patients are better prepared to adhere to relevant instructions, which can lead to improved clinical outcomes, reduced complications, and faster recovery times. Enhanced understanding also allows patients to set realistic expectations about the procedure and its results, reducing the risk of dissatisfaction or complaints.

    In this study, I intend to assess the information retention of patients with regard to orthognathic surgery, including the treatment process, indications and risks. Three different methods of providing written information will be compared to assess the best way of delivering orthodontic information:
    Group 1: GSTT Departmental Orthognathic Surgery Information Pack - STANDARD CONTROL
    Group 2: BOS Orthognathic Treatment Leaflet
    Group 3: Orthognathic Surgery Information Mind map.

    This research will improve the knowledge base to determine the best method of imparting information about orthognathic surgery, to provide future patients with a better understanding and enhance the informed consent process. It aims to address a recent increase in patient complaints with the orthognathic service and pathway; which could be attributed to a lack of understanding or retention of the associated information, like process and risks.

  • REC name

    London - Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    25/PR/0462

  • Date of REC Opinion

    2 May 2025

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion