ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2024
Qualitative assessment of proposed visual key information pages for informed consent.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Whether Icons and Visual Elements Help or Hinder Understanding of Key Information for Research Studies: Results From a Randomized Trial.Health literacy research and practice · 2026Trial
- Patients' Perspectives and Experiences of Participating in Anesthesia Research: A Qualitative Study.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2026Article
- Implementing and evaluating visual key information pages compared to text-based key information: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Assessing the Usability of a Novel Toolkit for Creating Visual Key Information Pages for Informed Consent for Research: Mixed Methods Usability Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Article
- Ethical implications of neurotechnology in industry-academia partnerships: Insights from patient and research participant interviews.PloS one · 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
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
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.