ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Assessing the Usability of a Novel Toolkit for Creating Visual Key Information Pages for Informed Consent for Research: Mixed Methods Usability Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. 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.
- Healthcare professional perspectives on hereditary breast cancer risk assessment prior to gender-affirming mastectomy.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Implementing and evaluating visual key information pages compared to text-based key information: protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Assessing the Usability of a Novel Toolkit for Creating Visual Key Information Pages for Informed Consent for Research: Mixed Methods Usability Study.JMIR formative 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Key information pages for informed consent require a concise summary of information to improve participant understanding but have not widely incorporated health literacy best practices. Objective: We previously developed a visual key information template to improve informed consent. In this study, we conducted usability testing of this customizable one-page key information template. Methods: We used the Designing for Accelerated Translation framework to plan for actionable, efficient usability testing. Participants (N=15) were asked to spend about 20 minutes using the visual key information template and engaging in a think-aloud protocol. They then responded to qualitative debrief questions about the template and validated measures of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with a usability-focused codebook and thematic analysis. Results: The toolkit was positively received. Common usability challenges included interpreting instructions, condensing consent content, replacing and resizing icons, and fitting information into template boxes. Participants had positive experiences with toolkit elements, particularly with the icon library, and generally felt the toolkit was easy to use and encouraged simplification of information. Some participants noted not fully reviewing instructions before the study and discussed specific technical abilities as potential limitations of widespread use. We documented suggestions and made changes to the toolkit in response to feedback received. Conclusions: Overall, participants considered the toolkit to be appropriate, acceptable, and feasible. Additional implementation outcomes are being collected in a multisite stepped-wedge randomized trial. Further research may investigate changes to format and software that balances functionality with ease of use.
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.