ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Video consent is preferred over written informed consent in pediatric rheumatology research.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine the difference in participant understanding, satisfaction, timing and, preference between video consent and written informed consent in a pediatric rheumatology research setting. Participants were randomized to receive either video consent or written informed consent for a registry study. After completing the first consent method, they completed a comprehension and satisfaction questionnaire. Then they received the alternate consent method and completed a second set of questionnaires. Bayesian non-parametric tests determined the difference in comprehension, satisfaction, timing and preference between video consent and written informed consent. Ninety-nine caregivers and 76 patients were randomized into video consent (n = 88) and written informed consent (n = 87) groups. Comprehension (Max = 12) and satisfaction (Max = 5) were high in both groups. There was moderate evidence supporting no difference in comprehension (medianvideo consent = 11 and medianwritten informed consent = 10) and satisfaction (medianvideo consent = 4 and medianwritten informed consent = 5) between video consent and written informed consent (BF10 = 0.225 and 0.32, respectively). The median time to complete video consent and written informed consent was 408 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 397-412) and 360 (95% CrI: 329-391) seconds, respectively. There was decisive evidence that video consent increased the time of consent (in our sample by 48 seconds) compared to written informed consent (BF10 = 713). There was decisive evidence for participants preferring video consent over written informed consent (BF10 = 2.307x1011) as they thought it was easier to follow. Overall, participant understanding and satisfaction were comparable between video consent and written informed consent. Even though video consent was slightly less time efficient compared to written informed consent, video consent was highly preferred by caregivers and patients, supporting its use to obtain informed consent.
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.