Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39576682›Full record

Trial reportJMIR formative research2024

Short-Form Video Informed Consent Compared With Written Consent for Adolescents and Young Adults: Randomized Experiment.

Aliyyat Afolabi, Elaine Cheung, Joanne Chen Lyu, Pamela M Ling

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

4 authors.

Aliyyat AfolabiCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9257-8242
Elaine CheungCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3923-2824
Joanne Chen LyuCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4178-6746
Pamela M LingCenter for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6166-9347

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdolescents and young adults have the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use ("vaping"), but they are difficult to enroll in health research studies. Previous studies have found that video consent can improve comprehension and make informed consent procedures more accessible, but the videos in previous studies are much longer than videos on contemporary social media platforms that are popular among young people.

objectiveThis study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a short-form (90-second) video consent compared with a standard written consent for a vaping cessation study for adolescents and young adults.

methodsWe conducted a web-based experiment with 435 adolescents and young adults (aged 13-24 years) recruited by a web-based survey research provider. Each participant was randomly assigned to view either a short-form video consent or a written consent form describing a behavioral study of a social media-based vaping cessation program. Participants completed a postexposure survey measuring three outcomes: (1) comprehension of the consent information, (2) satisfaction with the consent process, and (3) willingness to participate in the described study. Independent sample 2-tailed t tests and chi-square tests were conducted to compare the outcomes between the 2 groups.

resultsIn total, 435 cases comprised the final analytic sample (video: n=215, 49.4%; written: n=220, 50.6%). There was no significant difference in characteristics between the 2 groups (all P>.05). Participants who watched the short-form video completed the consent review and postconsent survey process in less time (average 4.5 minutes) than those in the written consent group (5.1 minutes). A total of 83.2% (179/215) of the participants in the video consent condition reported satisfaction with the overall consent process compared with 76.3% (168/220) in the written consent condition (P=.047). There was no difference in the ability to complete consent unassisted and satisfaction with the amount of time between study conditions. There was no difference in the composite measure of overall comprehension, although in individual measures, participants who watched the short-form video consent performed better in 4 measures of comprehension about risk, privacy, and procedures, while participants who read the written document consent had better comprehension of 2 measures of study procedures. There was no difference between the groups in willingness to participate in the described study.

conclusionsShort-form informed consent videos had similar comprehension and satisfaction with the consent procedure among adolescents and young adults. Short-form informed consent videos may be a feasible and acceptable alternative to the standard written consent process, although video and written consent forms have different strengths with respect to comprehension. Because they match how young people consume media, short-form videos may be particularly well suited for adolescents and young adults participating in research.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentAdolescentComprehensionFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesVapingVideo RecordingYoung Adultadolescentconsente-cigarettehealth communicationhealth researchinformed consentrandomized experimentsmoking cessationsocial mediavapingvaping cessationvideovideo informed consent

Identifiers

PMID39576682
PMCPMC11624449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.