ArticleJournal of community genetics2023
Evaluating visual imagery for participant understanding of research concepts in genomics research.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to communicate and what to disclose to participants in a recall-by-genotype research approach: a multistep empirical study.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
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
Informed consent is crucial for participant understanding, engagement, and partnering for research. However, current written informed consents have significant limitations, particularly for complex topics such as genomics and biobanking. Our goal was to identify how participants visually conceptualize terminology used in genomics and biobanking research studies, which might provide a novel approach for informed consent. An online convenience sample was used from May to July 2020 to collect data. Participants were asked to draw 10 randomly chosen words out of 32 possible words commonly used in consent forms for genomics and biobanking research. An electronic application captured drawings that were downloaded into a qualitative software program for analysis. A total of 739 drawings by 269 participants were captured. Participants were mostly female (61.3%), eight different race/ethnicities were represented (15.6% Black, 13.8% Hispanic), and most had some college education (68.8%). Some words had consistent visual themes such as different types of risky activities for risk or consistent specific images such as a double helix for DNA. Several words were frequently misunderstood (e.g., ascend for assent), while others returned few submissions (e.g., phenotype or whole genome sequencing). We found that although some words used in genomics and biobanking research were visually conceptualized in a common fashion, but misunderstood or less well-known words had no, few, or mistaken drawings. Future research can explore the incorporation of visual images to improve participant comprehension during consent processes, and how to utilize visual imagery to address more challenging concepts.
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.