Trial reportJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2020
Comparison of Video, App, and Standard Consent Processes on Decision-Making for Biospecimen Research: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- eConsent vs traditional consent among prospective biobank participants: a randomized study within a study trial.npj digital public health · 2026Article
- eConsent vs. Traditional Consent Among Prospective Biobank Participants: A Randomized Trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Community Review Boards offer a path to research equity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Electronic consent in clinical care: an international scoping review.BMJ health & care informatics · 2023Article
- Is Our Newborn Screening Working Well? A Literature Review of Quality Requirements for Newborn Blood Spot Screening (NBS) Infrastructure and Procedures.International journal of neonatal screening · 2023Review
- Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Article
- Adolescent Assent and Reconsent for Biobanking: Recent Developments and Emerging Ethical Issues.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Electronic informed consent information for residual newborn specimen research: findings from focus groups with diverse populations.Journal of community genetics · 2021Article
- Clinical Research in Neonates: Redesigning the Informed Consent Process in the Digital Era.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of a Stakeholder-Driven, Self-Contained Electronic Informed Consent Platform for Trio-Based Genomic Research Studies.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Obtaining informed consent for bloodspot research from newborn screening is particularly challenging due to the hectic environment of the postnatal period and the relatively abstract nature of future, unspecified research on the biospecimens. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in three Michigan hospitals to compare two different consent processes (video and interactive tablet "app") with standard brochure-based consent in the Michigan BioTrust for Health. Results indicated higher knowledge scores for the video and app groups as well as significantly higher scores on satisfaction, amount of information, and clarity with the information provided. More research is needed to find the right amount of information for informed decision-making, and additional feasibility studies are needed to assess implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.