Trial reportTrials2024
Randomized study of two different consent procedures on recall: a study within a digital alcohol intervention trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionIndividuals' comprehension of the information provided in consent forms should fundamentally influence whether to participate initially in a study and later whether to remain a participant. Existing evidence, however, suggests that participants do not thoroughly read, comprehend, or recall the information in consent forms. This study aimed to better understand how well participants recalled trial procedure information in the consent materials they received prior to taking part in a trial of a digital alcohol intervention.
methodThis study was nested within an online effectiveness trial. The study included a contrast between two layout approaches to present the trial procedure information: one where all materials were shown on the same page (One page) and one where participants had to click on links to get materials for certain parts of the study information (Active request). Recall of trial procedures was measured 2 months post-randomization with four questions. Participants were also asked to leave a comment after each question.
resultOf the 2437 individuals who registered interest in the parent trial, 1197 were randomized to One page and 1240 were randomized to Active request. Approximately 90% consented to participate and 53% of the participants responded to the recall questionnaire. Contrasting the consent layout showed no marked differences between groups in three out of the four questions on recall of trial procedures. There was, however, evidence that recall of aspects of how personal data would be handled during the trial did differ between the two groups, with the Active request group reporting less recall than the One page group. Free-text comments were used to give nuance to the quantitative analysis.
conclusionParticipants exposed to different layouts of trial procedure information exhibited varying levels of information recall 2 months after consenting. The findings highlight the influence of the presentation of consent forms, which should be given attention when designing trials.
trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN48317451. Registered 6 December 2018, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN48317451.
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.