Video consent is preferred over written informed consent in pediatric rheumatology research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to determine the difference in participant understanding, satisfaction, timing and, preference between video consent and written informed consent in a pediatric rheumatology research setting. Participants were randomized to receive either video consent or written informed consent for a registry study. After completing the first consent method, they completed a comprehension and satisfaction questionnaire. Then they received the alternate consent method and completed a second set of questionnaires. Bayesian non-parametric tests determined the difference in comprehension, satisfaction, timing and preference between video consent and written informed consent. Ninety-nine caregivers and 76 patients were randomized into video consent (n = 88) and written informed consent (n = 87) groups. Comprehension (Max = 12) and satisfaction (Max = 5) were high in both groups. There was moderate evidence supporting no difference in comprehension (medianvideo consent = 11 and medianwritten informed consent = 10) and satisfaction (medianvideo consent = 4 and medianwritten informed consent = 5) between video consent and written informed consent (BF10 = 0.225 and 0.32, respectively). The median time to complete video consent and written informed consent was 408 (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 397-412) and 360 (95% CrI: 329-391) seconds, respectively. There was decisive evidence that video consent increased the time of consent (in our sample by 48 seconds) compared to written informed consent (BF10 = 713). There was decisive evidence for participants preferring video consent over written informed consent (BF10 = 2.307x1011) as they thought it was easier to follow. Overall, participant understanding and satisfaction were comparable between video consent and written informed consent. Even though video consent was slightly less time efficient compared to written informed consent, video consent was highly preferred by caregivers and patients, supporting its use to obtain informed consent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.127 | 0.269 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".