Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32239442›Full record

Trial reportThe patient2020

Are Videos or Text Better for Describing Attributes in Stated-Preference Surveys?

Stephanie L Lim, Jui-Chen Yang, Jessie Ehrisman, Laura J Havrilesky, Shelby D Reed

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The patient, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An Age-Adapted Co-Design Methodology for Community Health Research Involving Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Stephanie L LimDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Jui-Chen YangDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 200 Morris Street, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
Jessie EhrismanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Laura J HavrileskyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Shelby D ReedDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 200 Morris Street, Durham, NC, 27701, USA. shelby.reed@duke.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn stated-preference research, the conventional approach to describing study attributes is through text, often with easy-to-understand graphics. More recently, researchers have begun to present attribute descriptions and content in videos. Some experts have expressed concern regarding internalization and retention of information conveyed via video.

objectiveOur study aimed to compare respondents' understanding of attribute information provided via text versus video.

methodsPotential respondents were randomized to receive a text or video version of the survey. In the text version, all content was provided in text format along with still graphics. In the video version, text content was interspersed with four video clips, providing the same information as the text version. In both versions, 10 questions were embedded to assess respondents' understanding of the information presented relating to ovarian cancer treatments. Half of the questions were on treatment benefits and the other half were on treatment-related risks. Some questions asked about the decision context and definitions of treatment features, and others asked about the graphic presentation of treatment features. Preferences for ovarian cancer treatments were also compared between respondents receiving text versus video versions.

resultsOverall, 150 respondents were recruited. Of the 95 who were eligible and completed the survey, 54 respondents received the text version and 41 received the video version. Median times to completion were 24 and 30 min in the video and text arms, respectively (p < 0.01). Both groups spent an average of 35 min completing the survey. On the first comprehension question, 43% in the text arm and 61% in the video arm provided the correct response (p = 0.08). Although the mean number of correct responses was significantly higher in the video versus text arms (9.1 vs. 8.6, p = 0.02), there were no systematic differences in preferences between arms.

conclusionsThe quality of stated-preference data relies on respondents' understanding of study content. Information provided via video may better engage survey participants and improve their retention of content.

Indexed as

Text MessagingVideo RecordingAgedDecision MakingFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPatient Education as TopicPatient PreferenceRisk AssessmentSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID32239442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.