Comprehension of Online Informed Consents: Can It Be Improved?

Antonacopoulos, Nikolina M. Duvall; Serin, Ralph C.

doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.1000458

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The visual form of information matters generally. Bullet points are absorbed more easily than paragraph text for public health communication (Lagass e et al, 2011) and consent documents (Jefford & Moore, 2008), but may be insufficient to improve recall (Wogalter & Shaver, 2001), unless simplified further via themes (Duvall Antonacopoulos & Serin, 2016) or reduced text content (Jolly et al, 1995). Categorisation of medical information can improve memory performance (Kessels, 2003), helped by specifying clear categories in advance to the recipient (Ley, 1979).…”

Section: Hypothesis 2cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using decision aids to support self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Lunn

Timmons

Julienne

et al. 2020

Psychology & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Self-isolation is a vital element of efforts to contain COVID-19. We set out to test whether decision aids can support self-isolation. Design: We conducted a pre-registered online experiment with a nationally representative sample (n ¼ 500). Three stages tested: (i) whether decision trees help people to decide whether they need to self-isolate; (ii) whether an online planning tool increases people's confidence in their ability to self-isolate; and (iii) whether infographics help people to absorb advice on managing a household in which someone must self-isolate. Main Outcome Measures: (i) Accuracy of matching symptom patterns to a response scale for the need to self-isolate; (ii) selfreported confidence in coping with self-isolation; (iii) objective tests of recall and comprehension. Results: Decision trees improved decisions about when self-isolation was necessary, although participants systematically underestimated the need to self-isolate with less common COVID-19 symptoms (e.g. sore throat, fatigue). The online planning tool increased confidence about coping with self-isolation only among the adults aged under 40. Infographics improved recall and comprehension of how to manage self-isolation. Conclusion: Decision aids can be used to support self-isolation during COVID-19. The study also demonstrates how even an emergency public health response can benefit from rapid experimental pre-testing of interventions.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis 2cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using decision aids to support self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Lunn

Timmons

Julienne

et al. 2020

Psychology & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although some participants thought the process could be improved by making changes to formatting (e.g., bolding, bullet points), prior research already finds that these changes are not successful at increasing participants’ comprehension (Perrault & Keating, 2018). In addition, although other studies find that engaging participants in an active informed consent process (e.g., answering questions, having multiple pages for people to click-through) can lead to greater comprehension (Antonacopoulos & Serin, 2016; Knepp, 2018; Varnhagen et al, 2005), what remains unknown is whether these types of processes might actually reduce the quality of data that researchers obtain. For example, if an informed consent process requires participants to engage in cognitively tasking exercises prior to even entering a study, participant fatigue might set in much earlier into a study.…”

Section: Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, not surprisingly, researchers have been seeking ways to put the "informed" back into the informed consent process, with varying degrees of success. For example, Antonacopoulos and Serin (2016) found that having a multiple consent process with bigger text and more white space, where participants had to individually agree with each element of the consent document, led to greater comprehension than a more traditional form. Knepp (2018) facilitated greater comprehension by having participants answer questions about the form, thereby encouraging them to more closely read it.…”

Section: Testing Improvementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concise Consent Forms Appreciated—Still Not Comprehended: Applying Revised Common Rule Guidelines in Online Studies

Perrault

McCullock

2019

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As informed consent documents have historically gotten lengthier, recent revisions to federal Common Rule guidelines now require consent forms that are “concise” and presented in ways that “facilitate comprehension.” The current research sought to apply these guidelines by developing a consent process for an online study that was only 71 words and also allowed participants a choice to either continue directly to the study or learn more about the study to which they were consenting. All participants (100%, N = 429) decided to continue directly to the study, choosing to forgo additional information about the study and the institutional review board (IRB) approval process. Participants indicated they liked this streamlined consent process, even though on average they only comprehended about half of the information this streamlined process contained. A plurality of participants indicated they would like to see this style of streamlined consent continued in future online studies. However, if we want to continue referring to informed consent as informed, future research should be welcomed and supported by IRBs to seek ways to apply the newest Common Rule guidelines while increasing comprehension; otherwise, informed consent will likely always remain an oxymoron.

show abstract

“…This format thereby forced participants to continually click to agree with each statement. However, participants experiencing this "multiple consent" process indicated they wished the consent was on just one page (Duvall-Antonacopoulos & Serin, 2016). Subsequently, the quality of the data provided by frustrated participants may be impacted.…”

Section: Educational Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeking Ways to Inform the Uninformed: Improving the Informed Consent Process in Online Social Science Research

Perrault

Keating

2017

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants often do not read consent forms in social science research. This is not surprising, especially for online studies, given they do not typically offer greater risk than what is encountered in daily life. However, if no one is reading, are participants really informed? This study used previous research to craft experimentally manipulated consent forms utilizing different visual presentations (e.g., greater use of line spacing, bullets, bolding, diagrams). Participants ( n = 547) were randomly exposed to one of seven form variations. Results found no significant differences between forms in reading or comprehension. Open-ended questions asked participants why they do not read consent forms and what would influence them to read the forms. Participants most frequently stated forms need to be shorter, and important information needs to be highlighted. We suggest improvements to informed consent forms, including removing much of the information that is constant across forms, and only including unique aspects of studies.

show abstract

Comprehension of Online Informed Consents: Can It Be Improved?

Cited by 12 publications

References 27 publications

Using decision aids to support self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Using decision aids to support self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic

Concise Consent Forms Appreciated—Still Not Comprehended: Applying Revised Common Rule Guidelines in Online Studies

Seeking Ways to Inform the Uninformed: Improving the Informed Consent Process in Online Social Science Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About