Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39790474›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024

Qualitative assessment of proposed visual key information pages for informed consent.

Krista E Cooksey, Eliana Goldstein, Clara Lee, Jessica Mozersky, Kimberly A Kaphingst, Victor Catalan Gallegos, Mary C Politi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Krista E CookseyDepartment of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7236-0089
Eliana GoldsteinDepartment of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Clara LeeDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jessica MozerskyDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Geriatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4942-4571
Kimberly A KaphingstDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Victor Catalan GallegosDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Mary C PolitiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AIMEE S JAMES · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS029310NCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The 2018 Common Rule revision intended to improve informed consent by recommending a concise key information (KI) section, yet provided little guidance about how to describe KI. We developed innovative, visual KI templates with attention to health literacy and visual design principles. We explored end users' attitudes, beliefs, and institutional policies that could affect implementing visual KI pages. Materials and methods: From October 2023 to April 2024, we conducted semi-structured interviews with principal investigators, research staff, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) personnel, including those in oversight/management, and community partners. Forty participants from three academic institutions (in the Midwest, Southeast, and Mountain West) viewed example KI pages and completed interviews. We coded written transcripts inductively and deductively based on the capability, opportunity, and motivation to change behavior (COM-B) framework. Data were analyzed using content analysis and organized thematically. Results: Participants responded positively to the visual KI examples. They discussed potential benefits, including improving information processing and understanding of study procedures, diversity in research, trust in research, and study workflow. They also described potential challenges to consider before widespread implementation: IRBs' interpretations of federal guidelines, possible impacts on IRB submission processes, the effort/skill required to develop visuals, and difficulty succinctly communicating study risks. There was no consensus about when to use visual KI during consent, and some wondered if they were feasible for all study types. Discussion: Visual KI offers a promising solution to long-standing informed consent challenges. Future work can explore resources and training to address challenges and promote widespread use.

Indexed as

Common Rulehealth literacyInformed consentkey information sectionvisual design

Identifiers

PMID39790474
PMCPMC11713442

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.