ArticleMethodological innovations2024
A novel experimental vignette methodology: SMART vignettes.
Article in Methodological innovations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of information on patient attitudes toward artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support (AI/CDS): a pilot web-based SMART vignette study.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Trial
- When Do Physicians Trust AI? The Role of Clinical Context in Decision Support: SMART vignette study.Research square · 2026Article
- Assessing the impact of AI on physician decision-making for mental health treatment in primary care.Npj mental health research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We motivate and present the methodology of vignette studies. The primary contribution of this paper is our proposal of a novel vignette study design: "SMART vignettes." Our design has two notable features: the first is its use of sequential randomization, which conceptually originates from the sequential multiple assignment randomization trial (SMART) design developed by Murphy (2004). The second feature is adaptive allocation. These new features in vignette studies offer unique advantages not offered by traditional vignettes: (1) valid causal inferences on the conditional distributions of the primary outcome of interest, given other factors, (2) balanced allocations across groups, and (3) a greater degree of interactivity for the survey respondent. We illustrate the utility of our method using a case example of a vignette study used to probe physicians' attitudes toward an AI-embedded clinical system. In this example, a SMART vignette was used to randomize hypothetical scenarios to gain a better understanding of the causal impact of physician attitudes, given emerging evidence that a range of factors including previous decisions, play a role in influencing clinical decisions. We simulated hypothetical vignette studies under both SMART and conventional (i.e. single randomization at baseline) designs. We varied the number of factors for each study and fixed each factor to have two levels. Relative loss was used to compare the degree of imbalance between groups. Both designs had smaller relative losses with larger sample sizes. The SMART study design had lower loss than its conventional counterpart for all values of
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.