ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2026
Qualitative evaluation of a video-based tool to support informed consent in colonoscopy.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopy unit efficiency is critical to provide timely and quality care, despite limited resources. In previous work, obtaining informed consent was the most common documented cause of delay. We developed a 4-minute animated video to facilitate the consent process, describing colonoscopy, its purpose, and potential risks and benefits. Aims: In this study, we aim to assess (1) the ability of the video to support the informed consent process and (2) the extent to which the video is attractive, clear, acceptable, actionable and usable, from the perspective of the audience. Methods: Using a critical case sample design with maximum variation, 12 participants completed pre- and postcolonoscopy 1:1 semistructured interviews after viewing the video. Questions evaluated whether key components of informed consent were conveyed and assessed the video using principles of learner verification (attractiveness, usability, comprehension, self-efficacy, acceptability). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and deductively. Results: Regarding informed consent, most participants understood the purpose and nature of a colonoscopy, but alternatives and participants' right to refuse were less effectively communicated. As a communication tool, the animations engaged participants and aided comprehension of complex material. The language was accessible; however, some participants found the video too fast and the font too small. Most participants found the video acceptable and characters relatable. Some identified information gaps included sedation level and procedure duration. Conclusions: The video-based tool can supplement standard approaches to informed consent for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Findings have informed revisions to the video and will guide its evaluation and implementation into clinical practice. Future research should assess its impact on endoscopy unit efficiency.
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.