Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35831055›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

Does digital, multimedia information increase recruitment and retention in a children's wrist fracture treatment trial, and what do people think of it? A randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT).

Thirimon Moe-Byrne, Peter Knapp, Daniel Perry, Juul Achten, Louise Spoors, Duncan Appelbe, Jenny Roche, Jacqueline M Martin-Kerry, Rebecca Sheridan, Steven Higgins

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Thirimon Moe-ByrneHealth Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2827-9715
Peter KnappHealth Sciences and the Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK peter.knapp@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5904-8699
Daniel PerryNDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Juul AchtenNDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Louise SpoorsNDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Duncan AppelbeNDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jenny RocheHealth Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Jacqueline M Martin-KerryHealth Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9299-1360
Rebecca SheridanHealth Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Steven HigginsSchool of Education, University of Durham, Durham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate digital, multimedia information (MMI) for its effects on trial recruitment, retention, decisions about participation and acceptability by patients, compared with printed information.

designStudy Within A Trial using random cluster allocation within the Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) study.

settingEmergency departments in 23 UK hospitals.

participants1409 children aged 4-16 years attending with a torus (buckle) fracture, and their parents/guardian. Children's mean age was 9.2 years, 41.0% were female, 77.4% were ethnically White and 90.0% spoke English as a first language.

interventionsParticipants and their parents/guardian received trial information either via multimedia, including animated videos, talking head videos and text (revised for readability and age appropriateness when needed) on tablet computer (MMI group; n=681), or printed participant information sheet (PIS group; n=728). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was recruitment rate to FORCE. Secondary outcomes were Decision-Making Questionnaire (nine Likert items, analysed summatively and individually), three 'free text' questions (deriving subjective evaluations) and trial retention.

resultsMMI produced a small, not statistically significant increase in recruitment: 475 (69.8%) participants were recruited from the MMI group; 484 (66.5%) from the PIS group (OR=1.35; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.40, p=0.31). A total of 324 (23.0%) questionnaires were returned and analysed. There was no difference in total Decision-Making Questionnaire scores: adjusted mean difference 0.05 (95% CI -1.23 to 1.32, p=0.94). The MMI group was more likely to report the information 'very easy' to understand (89; 57.8% vs 67; 39.4%; Z=2.60, p=0.01) and identify information that was explained well (96; 62.3% vs 71; 41.8%). Almost all FORCE recruits were retained at the 6 weeks' timepoint and there was no difference in retention rate between the information groups: MMI (473; 99.6%); PIS (481; 99.4%).

conclusionsMMI did not increase recruitment or retention in the FORCE trial, but participants rated multimedia as easier to understand and were more likely to evaluate it positively. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN73136092 and ISRCTN13955395.

Indexed as

MultimediaRadius FracturesChildCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleParentsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesWristHand & wristMEDICAL ETHICSPaediatric A&E and ambulatory careSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID35831055
PMCPMC9280884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.