Trial reportHealth literacy research and practice2026
Evaluating Whether Icons and Visual Elements Help or Hinder Understanding of Key Information for Research Studies: Results From a Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Health literacy research and practice, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInformed consent forms for research are often lengthy and complex. One way to improve consent forms is to clarify the key information page required for federally funded research in the United States. We developed a visual key information page using color, plain language, bulleted text, and icons. In formative studies, the visual key information page was positively received, but some asked whether icons improve outcomes or distract from information. This study tested whether icons affect knowledge, satisfaction, or engagement with study information.
methodsWe recruited English-speaking, U.S.-based adults through Prime Panels. Participants were randomized to view one of three versions of a key information page about a hypothetical biobank study: Version A used bulleted, plain language text organized in boxes, incorporating icons and visual elements; Version B was identical but with no icons or other visual elements; Version C displayed identical plain language text only. We measured participants' intention to join the study, decisional conflict about choice intention, knowledge of study details, satisfaction with the information, and engagement with the information. Finally, they viewed all versions and reported their preference among the three and their attitudes about icons in Version A. KEY
resultsA total of 453 participants responded; we analyzed 422 valid responses. There were no significant differences in outcomes by version (all
conclusionsAlthough participants preferred icons and visual elements over text alone, icons and visual elements did not affect knowledge, satisfaction, or engagement with study information. Future research will investigate whether and how visual key information enhances text-based consent forms in a multisite randomized trial with ongoing studies.
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.