1. The use of metadiscourse in informed consent documents can improve their clarity and comprehensibility for patients.
2. Professional genres, such as medical documents, require specific language and discourse strategies to effectively communicate with their intended audience.
3. Patient-centered communication, which prioritizes the patient's understanding and involvement in their own healthcare decisions, should be a key consideration in the writing and translation of informed consent documents.
The article "Metadiscourse in Informed Consent: Reflections for Improving Writing and Translation" by Isabel García-Izquierdo provides a comprehensive overview of the role of metadiscourse in informed consent documents. The author argues that metadiscourse, which refers to language used to guide readers through a text, can be used to improve the clarity and comprehensibility of informed consent documents.
Overall, the article is well-researched and provides valuable insights into the importance of metadiscourse in informed consent documents. However, there are some potential biases and limitations that should be considered.
One potential bias is that the article focuses primarily on the perspective of healthcare professionals and researchers, rather than patients. While the author acknowledges the importance of patient-centered communication, much of the discussion centers on how healthcare professionals can use metadiscourse to improve their writing and translation practices. This may limit the applicability of the article's findings for patients who are trying to understand complex medical information.
Another limitation is that while the article provides many examples of how metadiscourse can be used effectively in informed consent documents, it does not provide much evidence for its effectiveness. For example, while the author argues that using explicit markers such as "important" or "crucial" can help guide readers through a text, there is no empirical evidence presented to support this claim.
Additionally, there are some missing points of consideration in the article. For example, while the author discusses how metadiscourse can be used to improve readability and comprehension for patients with low health literacy levels, there is no discussion about how cultural differences or language barriers might impact understanding.
Despite these limitations, overall, "Metadiscourse in Informed Consent" provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of how language can impact informed consent processes. The article highlights important considerations for healthcare professionals and researchers when writing informed consent documents and offers practical suggestions for improving their effectiveness.