Wouter Leclercq

Chapter 8 136 REFERENCES 1. Vincent C, Young M, Phillips A. Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and relatives taking legal action, Lancet 1994;343:1609-1613. 2. Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions, Arch. Intern. Med. 1994;154:1365-1370. 3. Fisher TL. Medical malpractice in the United States: a review, Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1974;110:102-103. 4. Hamasaki T, Hagihara A. Physicians’ explanatory behaviours and legal liability in decided medical malpractice litigation cases in Japan, BMC Med. Ethics 2011;21(12):7. 5. Gittler GJ, Goldstein EJ. The elements of medical malpractice: an overview, Clin. Infect. Dis. 1996;23: 1152-1155. 6. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, King NMP. A History and Theory of Informed Consent, Oxford University press, New York, 1986. 7. Leclercq WKG, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MR, Spauwen PH, van der Wilt GJ. A review of surgical informed consent: past, present and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions, World J. Surg. 2010;34(7):1406-1415. 8. Leclercq WKG, Keulers BJ, Houterman S, Veerman M, Legemaate J, Scheltinga MR. A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands, Patient Saf. Surg. 2013;7(1):4. 9. Leclercq WK, Sloot S, Keulers BJ, Legemaate J, Scheltinga MR. [Preoperative medical record-keeping can be improved: new informed consent form assists both physicians and patients], Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2014;158:A7109. 10. Verbogt S. Hoofdstukken over gezondheidsrecht, 9th edn., Wolters- Noordhoff, Groningen, 2003. 11. Kessler TM, Nachbur BH, Kessler W. Patients’ perception of preoperative information by interactive computer program—exemplified by cholecystectomy, Patient Educ. Couns. 2005;59(2):135-140. 12. Grueninger UJ, Goldstein MG, Duffy FD. A conceptual framework for interactive patient education in practice and clinic settings, J. Hum. Hypertens. 1990;4(Suppl. 1):21-31. 13. Breemhaar B, Van den Borne HW. Effects of education and support for surgical patients: the role of perceived control, Patient Educ. Couns. 1991;18:199-210. 14. Conover WJ. Chapter 3.4: the sign test, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, third ed., Wiley, 1999: 157‑176 ISBN 0-471-16068-7. 15. Brody DS. The patient’s role in clinical decision-making, Ann. Intern. Med. 1980;93:718-722. 16. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, et al. Information and participation preferences among cancer patients, Ann. Intern. Med. 1980;92:832-836. 17. Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, et al. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients, J. Gen. Intern. Med. 1989;4:23-30. 18. McIntosh J. Processes of communication, information seeking and control associated with cancer: a selective review of the literature, Soc. Sci. Med. 1974;8:167-187. 19. Temple WJ, Temple WJ, Russell ML, et al. Conservation surgery for breast cancer as the preferred choice: a prospective analysis, J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:3367-3373. 20. Baum N. Informed consent – more than a form, J. Med. Pract. Manage. 2006;22(3):145-148. 21. Waitzkin H. Doctor-patient communication. Clinical implications of social scientific research, JAMA 1984;252:2441–2446.