Short-Form Video Informed Consent Compared With Written Consent for Adolescents and Young Adults: Randomized Experiment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults have the highest prevalence of e-cigarette use ("vaping"), but they are difficult to enroll in health research studies. Previous studies have found that video consent can improve comprehension and make informed consent procedures more accessible, but the videos in previous studies are much longer than videos on contemporary social media platforms that are popular among young people. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of a short-form (90-second) video consent compared with a standard written consent for a vaping cessation study for adolescents and young adults. METHODS: We conducted a web-based experiment with 435 adolescents and young adults (aged 13-24 years) recruited by a web-based survey research provider. Each participant was randomly assigned to view either a short-form video consent or a written consent form describing a behavioral study of a social media-based vaping cessation program. Participants completed a postexposure survey measuring three outcomes: (1) comprehension of the consent information, (2) satisfaction with the consent process, and (3) willingness to participate in the described study. Independent sample 2-tailed t tests and chi-square tests were conducted to compare the outcomes between the 2 groups. RESULTS: In total, 435 cases comprised the final analytic sample (video: n=215, 49.4%; written: n=220, 50.6%). There was no significant difference in characteristics between the 2 groups (all P>.05). Participants who watched the short-form video completed the consent review and postconsent survey process in less time (average 4.5 minutes) than those in the written consent group (5.1 minutes). A total of 83.2% (179/215) of the participants in the video consent condition reported satisfaction with the overall consent process compared with 76.3% (168/220) in the written consent condition (P=.047). There was no difference in the ability to complete consent unassisted and satisfaction with the amount of time between study conditions. There was no difference in the composite measure of overall comprehension, although in individual measures, participants who watched the short-form video consent performed better in 4 measures of comprehension about risk, privacy, and procedures, while participants who read the written document consent had better comprehension of 2 measures of study procedures. There was no difference between the groups in willingness to participate in the described study. CONCLUSIONS: Short-form informed consent videos had similar comprehension and satisfaction with the consent procedure among adolescents and young adults. Short-form informed consent videos may be a feasible and acceptable alternative to the standard written consent process, although video and written consent forms have different strengths with respect to comprehension. Because they match how young people consume media, short-form videos may be particularly well suited for adolescents and young adults participating in research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».