ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024
Participant comprehension and acceptability of enhanced versus text-only electronic informed consent: an innovative qualitative pilot study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2024. 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.
- Exploring knowledge and attitudes toward electronic informed consent among clinical trial participants in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Perspectives of parents receiving normal results from genomic newborn screening: a mixed-methods evaluation from the early check program.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of electronic informed consent (eIC) in decentralized trials offers a pragmatic approach to enrolling participants across multiple geographic areas.
methodsUsing a randomized, cross-over study design, we conducted a qualitative descriptive evaluation of two eIC approaches-text-only eIC and enhanced eIC-in a mock hypertension Phase III clinical trial. We assessed participant comprehension and acceptability (usability, satisfaction, and eIC preference).
resultsA total of 24 individuals with hypertension participated in the study: 12 reviewed the text-only eIC first, followed by the enhanced eIC, and 12 reviewed the enhanced eIC first, followed by the text-only eIC. The study population was diverse in gender, age, race, and geographic location. We found no descriptive differences in participant comprehension and satisfaction between the two eIC approaches. However, more participants preferred the enhanced eIC, and participants indicated that the digital elements were personable and made them feel more informed, engaged, comfortable, and prepared to participate in clinical research.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that enhancing the eIC process with digital elements may have beneficial outcomes among potential participants beyond comprehension and satisfaction.
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.