ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Using technology to increase reach and optimize consent experience for a large-scale research program.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The consent process for research studies can be burdensome for potential participants due to complex information and lengthy consent forms. This pragmatic study aimed to improve the consent experience and evaluate its impact on participant decision making, study knowledge, and satisfaction with the In Our DNA SC program, a population-based genomic screening initiative. We compared two consent procedures: standard consent (SC) involving a PDF document and enhanced consent (EC) incorporating a pictograph and true or false questions. Decision-making control, study knowledge, satisfaction, and time to consent were assessed. We analyzed data for 109 individuals who completed the SC and 96 who completed the EC. Results indicated strong decision-making control and high levels of knowledge and satisfaction in both groups. While no significant differences were found between the two groups, the EC experience took longer for participants to complete. Future modifications include incorporating video modules and launching a Spanish version of the consent experience. Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on consent improvements and highlights the need to assess salient components and explore participant preferences for receiving consent information.
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.