Table 1

Results of trials of video and computer multimedia interventions
Standard control Sample size Understanding scores, %
Source Intervention Population Scenario Control Intervention P Value
Karunaratne et al., 2010 Y Interactive computer presentation replaces consent form. Graphics, video clips, links, and text styling Patients with DM Simulated 60 73 82 0.005
Kass et al., 2009 (formerly Agre et al. 2003) N Digital touch-screen presentation on oncology clinical research replaces brochure Patients with cancer Real 130 17 34 0.03‡
Bickmore et al., 2009 Standard consent form with explanation by interactive, computerized “agent” Healthy volunteers Simulated 18 39 42 NS
Hack et al., 2007 Supplementary take-home audiotape recording of standardized study details° Patients with cancer Real 42 88 85 NS∞
Supplementary take-home audiotape recording of IC consultation and second audiotape of standardized study details° Patients with cancer Real 47 88 87 NS∞
Hutchinson et al., 2007 Supplementary 10 min. video. Vignettes, visual aids, voice-over, and graphics. Patients allowed to take video home° Patients with cancer Real 173 NA NA 0.011§,∞
Mittal et al., 2007 Powerpoint slideshow on computer replaces consent form. Graphics, text styling, summaries video and embedded voice narration° Patients with cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease Simulated 35 52 60 NS
Wirshing et al., 2005 (formerly Agre et al. 2003) N Video with specific study guidelines replaces generic video on human research. Professionally acted vignettes, bulleted text, and audio narration Patients with mental illness and healthy volunteers Simulated 261 69 73 < 0.0001
Campbell et al., 2004 Y Video replaces consent form. Voicenarration and no reading required Parents of pediatric research participants Simulated 120 47 50 NS
Y Computer presentation replaces consent form. Video and still pictures; bulleted text with audio narration Parents of pediatric research participants Simulated 118 47 51 NS†
Agre and Rapkin, 2003 N Computer presentation replaces consent form. Summary sections (?) Patients with cancer and healthy volunteers Real 209 68 66 NS
N Video replaces consent form. Professionally produced with summary sections Patients with cancer and healthy volunteers Real 221 68 73 NS
Dunn et al., 2003 (includes Dunn et al., 2001) Powerpoint slideshow replaces consent form. Altered organization, layout and summaries of text. Narrated by study staff° Patients with mental illness and healthy volunteers Real 99 85 91 0.014
Fureman et al., 1997 Supplementary 26 min. video. Talkshow format with expert panel answering audience questions° Injection drug users Real 186 81 80 NS
Weston et al., 1997 Supplementary, professionally filmed 10 min. video° Pregnant women Simulated 90 91 95 NS
Llewellyn- Thomas et al., 1995 Y Standard consent form in navigable, digital format Patients with cancer Simulated 100 81 79 NS

Abbreviations: NA not Available; NS Not significant; DM diabetes mellitus.

Bolded rows indicate trials include in the 2004 systematic review by Flory and Emanuel.

° Human proctor available for question/answer.

§ P-value is a based on change in pre-consent and post-consent quiz scores.

†P-value is a post hoc calculation of the total scores contrasting all combinations of formats; Understanding scores based on averages of high and low-risk protocol arms.

‡ Only relates to participant’s ability to identify purpose of the study.

∞ Understanding assessed at approximately 1 week.

Nishimura et al.

Nishimura et al. BMC Medical Ethics 2013 14:28   doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-28

Open Data