Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31347384›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2019

Recruitment and retention: A randomized controlled trial of video-enhanced versus standard consent processes within the E-OPTIMAL study.

Linda Brubaker, J Eric Jelovsek, Emily S Lukacz, Sunil Balgobin, Alicia Ballard, Alison C Weidner, Marie G Gantz, Ryan Whitworth, Donna Mazloomdoost, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network

Abstract readObservational StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

10 authors.

Linda BrubakerDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8598-2589
J Eric JelovsekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7196-817X
Emily S LukaczDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Sunil BalgobinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Alicia BallardDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Alison C WeidnerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Marie G GantzRTI International, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Ryan WhitworthRTI International, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Donna MazloomdoostEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network

Funding

Pelvic floor Disorders Network-Data Coordinating CenterU01HD041249 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WEI, JOHN T · 2001 to 2010
$19.8M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating Center (U01)U01HD069031 · NICHD · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI GANTZ, MARIE G · 2011 to 2015
$19.7M
Perioperative Pelvic Floor Rehab: A Rrandomized TrialU10HD041261 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI RICHTER, HOLLY E · 2001 to 2015
$5.1M
UNC Pelvic Floor Disorders Research CollaborativeU10HD041267 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI VISCO, ANTHONY G · 2001 to 2015
$5.0M
The Pelvic Floor Disorders NetworkU10HD041250 · NICHD · LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO · PI BRUBAKER, LINDA · 2001 to 2015
$3.8M
Pelvic Floor Disorders NetworkU10HD054214 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI LUKACZ, EMILY S. · 2006 to 2015
$3.3M
The Cleveland Clinic Clinical SiteU10HD054215 · NICHD · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI BARBER, MATTHEW D · 2006 to 2015
$3.2M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network 2021UG1HD054241 · NICHD · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI David Dwight Rahn · 2016 to 2026
$3.0M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Site Application: The San Diego PelvicFloor ConsortiumUG1HD054214 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI EMILY S. LUKACZ, Shawn A Menefee · 2016 to 2026
$2.9M
Iowa Pelvic Floor Disorders Clinical Trials NetworkU10HD041248 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI KREDER, KARL J · 2001 to 2005
$1.9M
NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Sites (U10)U10HD054241 · NICHD · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI SCHAFFER, JOSEPH I · 2006 to 2015
$1.9M
Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Clinical Sites (U10)U10HD069010 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ARYA, LILY A · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD041249NICHD NIH HHS U01 HD069031NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041248NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041250NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041261NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041267NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD041269NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054136NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054214NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054215NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD054241NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069006NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069010NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069013NICHD NIH HHS U10 HD069025NICHD NIH HHS UG1 HD054214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsIn this study, we compared two research consent techniques: a standardized video plus usual consent and usual consent alone.

methodsIndividuals who completed 24-month outcomes (completers) in the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss study were invited to participate in an extended, longitudinal follow-up study (extended Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss). Potential participants who were (1) able to provide consent and (2) not in long-term care facilities were randomized 1:1 to a standardized video detailing the importance of long-term follow-up studies of pelvic floor disorders followed by the usual institutional consent process versus the usual consent process alone. Randomization, stratified by site, used randomly permuted blocks. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who enrolled in the extended study

resultsOf the 327 Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss completers, 305 were randomized to the consent process study (153 video vs 152 no video). Groups were similar in demographics, surgical treatment, and outcomes. The overall rate of extended study enrollment was high, without significant differences between groups (video 92.8% vs no video 94.1%, p = 0.65). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (video 79.1% vs no video 75.7%, p = 0.47) or in any secondary outcomes. Being "very satisfied" overall with study information (97.7% vs 88.5%, p = 0.01); "strong agreement" for feeling informed about the study (81.3% vs 70.8%, p = 0.06), understanding the study purpose (83.6% vs 71.0%, p = 0.02), nature and extent (82.8% vs 70.2%, p = 0.02), and potential societal benefits (82.8% vs 67.9%, p = 0.01); and research coordinator/study nurse relationship being "very important" (72.7% vs 63.4%, p = 0.03) were better in the video compared to the no video consent group.

conclusionThe extended study had high enrollment; most participants completed most study tasks during the 3-year observational extension, regardless of the use of video to augment research consent. The video was associated with a higher proportion of participants reporting improved study understanding and relationship with study personnel.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentPatient SelectionAgedFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedPatient DropoutsResearch SubjectsUterine ProlapseVideo Recordingclinical researchInformed consentpelvic organ prolapsesurgical trialurinary incontinencevideo consent

Identifiers

PMID31347384
PMCPMC7197014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.