ArticleBMJ open2021
Perceptions of a short animated film on adverse childhood experiences: a mixed methods evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Creative Approach to Knowledge Translation: The Use of Short Animated Film to Share Stories of Refugees and Mental Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- An evaluation of a short film promoting kindness in Wales during COVID-19 restrictions #TimeToBeKind.BMC public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAn evaluation of a short animated film on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to explore attitudes and sentiment towards the film including, for a subsample of professionals, associations between attitudes and personal experience of ACEs.
designMixed-method exploratory design.
settingProfessionals and the general public.
participantsA short online survey with 239 professionals. Interaction and user sentiment towards with the film on social media (Twitter, YouTube). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey: participants' attitudes towards the film including feelings invoked, learning gained and ACE count prevalence. Twitter user and YouTube viewer sentiment (positive, negative or neutral) and interaction (likes, retweets or comments) with the film.
resultsAttitudes to the film were positive: 94.1% and 93.7%, respectively, agreed that it provided a helpful explanation of ACEs and trusted that the film was credible. Of those who reported ACE exposure, 88.9% agreed that those with ACEs would benefit from watching the film. Despite 50.6% reporting that the film had made them feel sad or upset, the majority (66.4%) reported they found the film hopeful or encouraging. Across 358 publicly available tweets from 313 users, 39.1% of tweets expressed positive sentiment, with only 1.4% negative (59.5% neutral). However, there was no association between tweet sentiment and interaction. Thirteen YouTube versions of the film received 171 812 views, 97.3% (n=889/914) ratings were positive (ie, 'thumbs up').
conclusionsDespite being emotionally arousing, many professionals reflected positive impacts of the film including a perceived increased ability to discuss ACEs. Public sentiment demonstrated a positive reaction to and acceptability of the film. Understanding the professional and public response to materials developed to increase ACE awareness, such as the film explored here, is important given the growing number of international movements which seek to increase ACE awareness, prevent ACEs and mitigate their lifelong negative effects.
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.