Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29351736›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical research methodology2018

Studying medical communication with video vignettes: a randomized study on how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence analogue patients' engagement.

Leonie N C Visser, Nadine Bol, Marij A Hillen, Mathilde G E Verdam, Hanneke C J M de Haes, Julia C M van Weert, Ellen M A Smets

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Leonie N C VisserDepartment of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. N.C.Visser@amc.uva.nl.
Nadine BolAmsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marij A HillenDepartment of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mathilde G E VerdamResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hanneke C J M de HaesDepartment of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Julia C M van WeertAmsterdam School of Communication Research/ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ellen M A SmetsDepartment of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100, DD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVideo vignettes are used to test the effects of physicians' communication on patient outcomes. Methodological choices in video-vignette development may have far-stretching consequences for participants' engagement with the video, and thus the ecological validity of this design. To supplement the scant evidence in this field, this study tested how variations in video-vignette introduction format and camera focus influence participants' engagement with a video vignette showing a bad news consultation.

methodsIntroduction format (A = audiovisual vs. B = written) and camera focus (1 = the physician only, 2 = the physician and the patient at neutral moments alternately, 3 = the physician and the patient at emotional moments alternately) were varied in a randomized 2 × 3 between-subjects design. One hundred eighty-one students were randomly assigned to watch one of the six resulting video-vignette conditions as so-called analogue patients, i.e., they were instructed to imagine themselves being in the video patient's situation. Four dimensions of self-reported engagement were assessed retrospectively. Emotional engagement was additionally measured by recording participants' electrodermal and cardiovascular activity continuously while watching. Analyses of variance were used to test the effects of introduction format, camera focus and their interaction.

resultsThe audiovisual introduction induced a stronger blood pressure response during watching the introduction (p = 0.048, [Formula: see text]= 0.05) and the consultation part of the vignette (p = 0.051, [Formula: see text]= 0.05), when compared to the written introduction. With respect to camera focus, results revealed that the variant focusing on the patient at emotional moments evoked a higher level of electrodermal activity (p = 0.003, [Formula: see text]= 0.06), when compared to the other two variants. Furthermore, an interaction effect was shown on self-reported emotional engagement (p = 0.045, [Formula: see text]= 0.04): the physician-only variant resulted in lower emotional engagement if the vignette was preceded by the audiovisual introduction. No effects were shown on the other dimensions of self-reported engagement.

conclusionsOur findings imply that using an audiovisual introduction combined with alternating camera focus depicting patient's emotions results in the highest levels of emotional engagement in analogue patients. This evidence can inform methodological decisions during the development of video vignettes, and thereby enhance the ecological validity of future video-vignettes studies.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsReferral and ConsultationAdolescentAdultBlood PressureFemaleHumansMalePatient ParticipationPatient SimulationRetrospective StudiesSelf ReportVideo RecordingYoung AdultAnalogue patientsCamera viewpointEngagementIntroductionPatient-provider communicationPsychophysiologyVideo-vignettes design

Identifiers

PMID29351736
PMCPMC5775584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.