Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39847412›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Factors Influencing Informed Consent Preferences in Digital Health Research: Survey Study of Prospective Participants.

Brian J McInnis, Ramona Pindus, Daniah Kareem, Daniela G Vital, Eric B Hekler, Camille Nebeker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Brian J McInnisSchool of Information, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7539-4871
Ramona PindusHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0001-6153-006X
Daniah KareemHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-3587-7900
Daniela G VitalHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0227-908X
Eric B HeklerHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7434-0775
Camille NebekerHerbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6819-1796

Funding

Ethics Core (FABRIC)U54HG012510 · NHGRI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI OHNO-MACHADO, LUCILA · 2022 to 2025
$11.2M
NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG012510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReadability is important to consider when developing informed consent communications for prospective research participants, but not the most important consideration. Other factors to consider relate to learning preferences and literacy needs of people recruited to participate in research, as these factors can influence understanding of consent communications. To promote understanding among prospective participants, researchers should take a human-centered approach to develop consent communications.

objectiveThis study aims to explore how factors related to readability, topic, and participant demographic characteristics play into preferences for digital health research consent material. These factors are important to consider as not attending to some details that matter to a specific subgroup of prospective participants may systematically exclude people from research.

methodsPeople eligible to participate in a digital health study were recruited to review 31 paragraph length sections of a consent form, referred to as "text snippets," for an existing institutional review board-approved digital health study. Participants (N=79) were surveyed and asked to choose between 2 variations of the text snippets, either indicating a preference for the institutional review board-approved original or a version that was modified to improve readability.

resultsA slim majority of participants provided feedback about the snippets (n=44; 55%). Our qualitative analysis of the feedback found that participants preferred shorter snippets, in general, but the snippets also elicited new questions not addressed by the original consent material. This observation is supported by our quantitative analysis, which found that when the character length of the original was longer, participants were less likely to prefer the original (P<.001) and more likely to prefer the modified text by a factor of 1.20 times (P=.04), and particularly for snippets explaining study risks (P=.03). Our analysis also found significant differences in participant demographic characteristics. For example, older participants tended to prefer the original more than younger participants, by a factor of 1.95 times (P=.004). The results present illustrative examples of how factors related to sex, age, physical activity, and ethnicity all play into preference for consent communication.

conclusionsThe findings point toward new ways of evaluating informed consent communication: (1) for responsiveness to specific prospective participant populations, and (2) effectiveness at eliciting informed questions from people considering participation. We discuss how creating partnerships with prospective participants to prototype informed consent materials, specifically study procedures and risks, can be a way to identify those details before launching a study. Furthermore, future research should go beyond "readability" to explore alternate measures of evaluating consent materials, such as the likelihood that the consent material and communication procedures will elicit "informed questions" for the research team.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentAdultAgedComprehensionDigital HealthFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurveys and Questionnairesconsent communicationdigital healtheffectivenesshealth informaticshealth informationhealth literacyhuman-centered approachinformed consentqualitative analysisreadabilityresearch ethicstext snippet

Identifiers

PMID39847412
PMCPMC11803319

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.