Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40107701›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Accelerating implementation of visual key information to improve informed consent in research: a single-institution feasibility study and implementation testing.

Angela Hill, Ashley J Housten, Krista Cooksey, Eliana Goldstein, Jessica Mozersky, Mary C Politi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Angela HillWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5577-1078
Ashley J HoustenWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Krista CookseyWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Eliana GoldsteinWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jessica MozerskyWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
Mary C PolitiWashington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA mpoliti@wustl.edu.

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AIMEE S JAMES · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
SURGICAL ONCOLOGY TRAINING GRANTT32CA009621 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI TIMOTHY J. EBERLEIN, William E. Gillanders · 1988 to 2026
$12.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009621
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCurrent consent processes often fail to communicate study information effectively and may lead to disparities in study participation. The 2018 Common Rule introduced a mandatory key information (KI) section as a means of improving consents; however, it frequently remains lengthy and prohibitively complex. We conducted a feasibility study of an accessible visual KI template for use in routine studies.

designParallel feasibility study and implementation testing.

settingSingle Midwestern US academic centre, between July 2023 and July 2024.

participantsTo develop and implement the visual KI template, we used rapid implementation science methods and recruited decision-making and clinical experts, patients and community partners to iteratively adapt the KI template. To assess its efficacy, we surveyed patient participants eligible to enrol in one of four clinical trials that used the visual KI template as part of informed consent. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was participant knowledge about clinical trial details. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict about joining the trial (validated SURE measure), KI template acceptability (validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure) and perceived self-efficacy communicating about trial details with researchers/clinicians (items adapted from the Perceived Efficacy in Patient/Physician Interaction measure). Feasibility was evaluated based on reach, number of modifications needed to tailor the intervention to each pilot trial, and time required for ethics reviews.

resultsOf 85 study participants across the four clinical trials using the visual KI page, the weighted mean knowledge score about trial details was 87.4% correct (range 77.8%-88.9%). Few (n=9; 10.6%) reported decisional conflict about whether to participate. Almost all (n=82; 96.5%) participants stated they approve using the visual KI template. 79 (92.9%) participants reported feeling confident asking clinicians or researchers questions about the trial.

conclusionsVisual KI templates can improve potential participant comprehension and in doing so, may reduce barriers to participation in research. Parallel feasibility studies and implementation science methods can facilitate the rapid development and evaluation of evidence-based interventions, such as improved informed consent templates.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicInformed ConsentAdultAgedDecision MakingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchFeasibility StudiesImplementation Science

Identifiers

PMID40107701
PMCPMC11927487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.