‘Like a Kid's Book’: Pilot Testing of a Visual Informed Consent Form With Children in Canada, Ghana and Laos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT It is a moral imperative to conduct the consent process in a way that is understandable, engaging and meaningful for children. This underscores the necessity of obtaining consent through age‐ and culturally appropriate methods and content. Using qualitative, participatory visual research methods, this study aimed to gather feedback on a visual informed consent (VIC) storybook among 17 primary school‐aged children in Canada, Ghana and Laos. Participatory workshops with children were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis yielded four themes: (1) study premise and purpose, (2) confidentiality, (3) voluntariness and (4) compensation. Most children responded positively to the VIC and preferred the visual format over conventional written consent forms, as it was easier to engage with and helped maintain their attention. The VIC appears to be a useful tool for presenting information and obtaining consent. Further studies are needed to assess its usability across diverse sociocultural and urban–rural settings.
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 | 0.079 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".