Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2025
Comparing the effectiveness of animated videos and talking-head videos in science communication.
Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparing the effectiveness of animated videos and talking-head videos in science communication.British journal of health psychology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOnline videos are becoming increasingly popular for obtaining nutrition-related information. Learning theories suggest that videos may differ in their effectiveness of conveying knowledge depending on the correspondence between audio and visual content. We thus tested whether two popular video formats, i.e. talking-head and animated videos, differed regarding knowledge transfer effectiveness and their ability to stimulate content sharing.
design2 video format x 3 topic between-subjects experiment.
methodsA total of 358 participants who were representative for the German population regarding age, gender and level of education were randomly assigned to viewing one video format about one of three nutrition-related topics. Afterwards, they rated the video, indicated willingness to share the information with others and answered a set of quiz questions about all three topics to assess knowledge.
resultsVideos did not differ in their evaluation (F[1, 352] = 0.16, p = .898), knowledge transfer (F[2, 352] = 0.10, p = .749) or content sharing (F[1, 352] = 0.12, p = .727). However, participants received a better knowledge score for the video topic they watched a video about than for the other two topics (F[4, 704] = 50.00, p < .001, partial η2 = .22).
conclusionsTherefore, both formats can be considered equally effective for use in science communication.
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.