Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| University College, London | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this randomized control trial is to compare the effect of visual aids on the recall of probabilistic risks in healthy participants. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Researchers will compare the control and intervention group to see if there is improvement in the recall of information and which consent process is more acceptable, appropriate and usable.
Background:
Informed consent is an essential process in clinical decision-making, through which healthcare providers educate patients about the benefits, risks and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention in a descriptive way. An accurate understanding of the numerical information pertaining to risk is important because individuals perceive probability differently while also having different thresholds for what they would consider an unacceptable. This is vital for shared decision making to ensure that patients only undergo procedures or treatments where their understanding of the risks is in line with their personal level of acceptability. Aid tools have been employed to elaborate and communicate probabilistic risk information in areas such as screening (1). To the best of our knowledge there are no studies which evaluate the application of such visual aids on probabilistic information in surgical patients.
Objectives:
Our study aims to explore the effectiveness of visual aids to help communicate statistical information during the informed consent of a common clinical procedure: a lumbar puncture. We compare the effectiveness of this enhanced consent process against a typical consent method without visual aids
Methods:
Healthy participants were recruited within our institution and randomized using Qualtrics to complete a questionnaire containing either the control video or intervention video. Both videos contained identical audio narration however the intervention video included additional visual aids.
Status:
Recruitment of participants has been completed and the study has been written-up and submitted for publication and presentations.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard informed consent | Active Comparator | Video with audio narration containing information provided in the standard informed consent process for a lumbar puncture |
|
| Visual aid group | Experimental | Video with identical audio narration (to the control) containing information provided in the standard informed consent process for a lumbar puncture. The video also received statistical information in the form of visual aids; anatomy diagrams, Paling diagrams and Paling scales |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anatomy diagrams | Other | The visual aids used included:
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Recall of probabilistic risk | Measured by the number of correct answers to our procedure specific questionnaire | Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Response to procedure specific statements | Measured using 5-point likert scale responses | Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention |
| Acceptability | Measured by the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) scale |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Anand S Pandit, PhD MRCS | University College London/University College London Hospital | Principal Investigator |
| Hani J Marcus, PhD FRCS (SN) | University College London/University College London Hospital | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University College London | London | WC1E 6BT | United Kingdom |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 33196663 | Background | Coyle M, Gillies K. A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context? PLoS One. 2020 Nov 16;15(11):e0242239. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242239. eCollection 2020. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Upon clicking the link to the study questionnaire, participants were randomized to either receive the control or intervention questionnaire. This was done through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) built-in randomization.
Not provided
Not provided
Investigators were blind as to which arm participants were allocated to as the randomization and intervention/control exposure occurs after participants open the link to the study questionnaire. The same link would allocate participants to either the control/intervention group.
Outcomes were assessed within the questionnaire without any human input No care providers were present in this study
|
|
| Standard informed consent | Other | Audio narration of a video containing text information relating to the lumbar puncture procedure (including risks) and an image of a consent form |
|
| Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention |
| Approrpiateness | Measured by the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) scale | Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention |
| Usability | Measured by the System Usability Scale (SUS) | Measured immediately following exposure to control/intervention |