Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
An Electronic Tool to Support Patient-Centered Broad Consent: A Multi-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial in Family Medicine.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Implementing broad consent for research with routinely collected clinical data and residual biosamples in a cancer hospital: using mixed methods approach to evaluate consent rates and patients' perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Digital health and consumer health informatics: past and future.Medical research archives · 2026Article
- The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives and Preferences for Consent in the Digital Health Context: State-of-the-art Literature Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Review
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Research Participants in China Toward Electronic Informed Consent in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- METORY: Development of a Demand-Driven Blockchain-Based Dynamic Consent Platform Tailored for Clinical Trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- An Integrated, Scalable, Electronic Video Consent Process to Power Precision Health Research: Large, Population-Based, Cohort Implementation and Scalability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Personalized and longitudinal electronic informed consent in clinical trials: How to move the needle?Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatients are frequently asked to share their personal health information. The objective of this study was to compare the effects on patient experiences of 3 electronic consent (e-consent) versions asking patients to share their health records for research.
methodsA multi-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 2017 through November 2018. Adult patients (n = 734) were recruited from 4 family medicine clinics in Florida. Using a tablet computer, participants were randomized to (1) a standard e-consent (standard), (2) an e-consent containing standard information plus hyperlinks to additional interactive details (interactive), or (3) an e-consent containing standard information, interactive hyperlinks, and factual messages about data protections and researcher training (trust-enhanced). Satisfaction (1 to 5), subjective understanding (0 to 100), and other outcomes were measured immediately, at 1 week, and at 6 months.
resultsA majority of participants (94%) consented to future uses of their health record information for research. No differences in study outcomes between versions were observed at immediate or 1-week follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, compared with the standard e-consent, participants who used the interactive e-consent reported greater satisfaction (B = 0.43; SE = 0.09;
conclusionsPatients who used e-consents with interactive research details and trust-enhancing messages reported higher satisfaction and understanding at 6-month follow-up. Research institutions should consider developing and further validating e-consents that interactively deliver information beyond that required by federal regulations, including facts that may enhance patient trust in research.
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.