The effectiveness of video animations as information tools for patients and the general public: A systematic review

Abstract

Background and objectivesVideo animations are used increasingly as patient information tools; however, we do not know their value compared to other formats of delivery, such as printed materials, verbal consultations or static images.MethodsThis review compares the effectiveness of video animations as information tools vs. other formats of delivery on patient knowledge, attitudes and cognitions, and behaviours. Included studies had the following features: controlled design with random or quasi-random allocation; patients being informed about any health condition or members of the public being informed about a public health topic; comparing video animation with another delivery format. Multiple digital databases were searched from 1996-June 2021. We also undertook citation searching. We used dual, independent decision-making for inclusion assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Findings were reported using narrative synthesis.ResultsWe included 38 trials, focussed on: explaining medical or surgical procedures (n = 17); management of long-term conditions (n = 11); public health, health-promotion or illness-prevention (n = 10). Studies evaluated cartoon animations (n = 29), 3D animations (n = 6), or 2D animations, “white-board” animations or avatars (n = 1 each). Knowledge was assessed in 30 studies, showing greater knowledge from animations in 19 studies, compared to a range of comparators. Attitudes and cognitions were assessed in 21 studies, and animations resulted in positive outcomes in six studies, null effects in 14 studies, and less positive outcomes than standard care in one study. Patient behaviours were assessed in nine studies, with animations resulting in positive outcomes in four and null effects in the remainder. Overall risk of bias was “high” (n = 18), “some concerns” (n = 16) or “low” (n = 4). Common reasons for increased risk of bias were randomisation processes, small sample size or lack of sample size calculation, missing outcome data, and lack of protocol publication.DiscussionThe overall evidence base is highly variable, with mostly small trials. Video animations show promise as patient information tools, particularly for effects on knowledge, but further evaluation is needed in higher quality studies.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42021236296.

The effectiveness of video animations in the education of healthcare practitioners and student practitioners: a systematic review of trials

“…For example, in non-healthcare settings the relative benefits of animations over static pictures were greater when procedural knowledge was being taught [ 8 ] and when a more realistic animation style was being used. When used with patients, animations have shown a similar pattern to those reported in this review: mostly beneficial effects on knowledge, and mixed findings (and much less evidence) on attitudes, cognitions and behaviour [ 7 ].…”

“…Animations were not always shown to be beneficial in the included studies, but there are several results that indicate promising effects: these need replication, particularly in bigger, more definitive trials. As in patient settings [ 7 ], this review found a lack of research for the effects on behaviour, and this warrants further investigation. Furthermore, it would be useful for studies to assess the relative effects of ‘representational’ and ‘decorative’ animation styles, which was found to be important in non-healthcare education [ 8 ].…”

“…Claims have been made for their effectiveness as informational and educational tools, but the claims are not always based on trial-level evaluations [6]. However, there is triallevel evidence that animations can have positive effects on knowledge when used with patients [7] and a meta-analysis of their effects in non-healthcare education showed a benefit of animations over static images, particularly when the animations were 'representational' [8]. There is also some trial-level evidence for the benefits of computer-aided and multimedia methods in science education, but the evidence is not specific to animations [9][10][11].…”

“…The searches were developed by a specialist information scientist from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York (an example search strategy is reported in the figure in the Electronic Supplementary Material; other database searches can be provided on request). The searches were undertaken for two linked systematic reviews (this review and another review assessing video animations for patients [ 7 ]). As a result, the total hits are reported jointly for the two reviews until the full article screening stage.…”

Current usage of explainer animations in trials: a survey of the UKCRC registered clinical trial units in the UK

“…Moe-Byrne et al have suggested after the evidence was evaluated in 2022 that the use of animations is a more effective means to deliver education/information compared with traditional paper-based information sheets, although the authors commented that the evidence base was highly variable and mostly based on small trials [ 10 ]. However, there are some large standalone studies—one such study comes from the USA, where 1194 cancer patients and survivors took part in a four-arm experiment to assess the effects of EAs compared with text-only brochures, brochures with visuals and the materials that were currently in use by the National Institute for Health (NIH) [ 11 ].…”