Tinashe Cynthia Mwaturura, Victoria Simms, Ethel Dauya, Som Kumar Shrestha, Salmaan Ferrand, Talent Shavani, Chido Dziva Chikwari, Constance R S Mackworth-Young, Tsitsi Bandason, Constancia Mavodza, Mandikudza Tembo, Katharina Kranzer, Sarah Bernays, Rashida Abbas Ferrand
{"title":"研究信息视频在改善青少年研究同意过程中的可接受性和有效性:一项非劣效性试验。","authors":"Tinashe Cynthia Mwaturura, Victoria Simms, Ethel Dauya, Som Kumar Shrestha, Salmaan Ferrand, Talent Shavani, Chido Dziva Chikwari, Constance R S Mackworth-Young, Tsitsi Bandason, Constancia Mavodza, Mandikudza Tembo, Katharina Kranzer, Sarah Bernays, Rashida Abbas Ferrand","doi":"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Obtaining informed consent for research includes the use of information sheets, which are often long and may be difficult for participants to understand. We conducted a trial to investigate whether consent procedures using a study information video coupled with electronic consent were non-inferior to standard consent procedures using participant information sheets (PIS) among youth aged 18-24 years in Zimbabwe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The trial was nested within an endline population-based survey for a cluster-randomised trial from October 2021 to June 2022. Randomisation of participants to video or paper-based consent was at household level. We assessed non-inferiority in comprehension of the study using a questionnaire. The video method was accepted as non-inferior to standard consent procedures if the 95% CIs of the mean difference did not fall below the prespecified margin of 1.98. Thematic analysis was conducted on brief qualitative discussions with randomly selected youth to explore the acceptability of video and PIS within consent methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 921 participants were enrolled (54% female). The median age was 20 (IQR 18-24) years. The mean comprehension score was 25.4/30 in both arms. The mean difference in comprehension between arms was -0.02 (95% CI -0.51 to 0.47) showing non-inferiority of the intervention in comprehension of study information. Youth (N=90) described both consent methods as interactive and inclusive. Those in the video consent arm felt it was exciting and youth focused. The use of imagery to explain procedures strengthened the perceived trustworthiness of the research. However, the high volume of information in both arms reduced acceptability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comprehension of study information using an information video is non-inferior to a paper-based consent method. Using information videos for consent processes shows promise as a person-centred and context-sensitive approach to enhance the informed consent process and should be encouraged by ethics committees.</p>","PeriodicalId":9137,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Global Health","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749567/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Acceptability and effectiveness of a study information video in improving the research consent process for youth: a non-inferiority trial.\",\"authors\":\"Tinashe Cynthia Mwaturura, Victoria Simms, Ethel Dauya, Som Kumar Shrestha, Salmaan Ferrand, Talent Shavani, Chido Dziva Chikwari, Constance R S Mackworth-Young, Tsitsi Bandason, Constancia Mavodza, Mandikudza Tembo, Katharina Kranzer, Sarah Bernays, Rashida Abbas Ferrand\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Obtaining informed consent for research includes the use of information sheets, which are often long and may be difficult for participants to understand. We conducted a trial to investigate whether consent procedures using a study information video coupled with electronic consent were non-inferior to standard consent procedures using participant information sheets (PIS) among youth aged 18-24 years in Zimbabwe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The trial was nested within an endline population-based survey for a cluster-randomised trial from October 2021 to June 2022. Randomisation of participants to video or paper-based consent was at household level. We assessed non-inferiority in comprehension of the study using a questionnaire. The video method was accepted as non-inferior to standard consent procedures if the 95% CIs of the mean difference did not fall below the prespecified margin of 1.98. Thematic analysis was conducted on brief qualitative discussions with randomly selected youth to explore the acceptability of video and PIS within consent methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 921 participants were enrolled (54% female). The median age was 20 (IQR 18-24) years. The mean comprehension score was 25.4/30 in both arms. The mean difference in comprehension between arms was -0.02 (95% CI -0.51 to 0.47) showing non-inferiority of the intervention in comprehension of study information. Youth (N=90) described both consent methods as interactive and inclusive. Those in the video consent arm felt it was exciting and youth focused. The use of imagery to explain procedures strengthened the perceived trustworthiness of the research. However, the high volume of information in both arms reduced acceptability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comprehension of study information using an information video is non-inferior to a paper-based consent method. Using information videos for consent processes shows promise as a person-centred and context-sensitive approach to enhance the informed consent process and should be encouraged by ethics committees.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749567/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014481\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014481","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
引言:获得研究的知情同意包括使用信息表,这些信息表通常很长,可能对参与者来说难以理解。我们进行了一项试验,以调查在津巴布韦18-24岁的青少年中,使用研究信息视频和电子同意的同意程序是否不逊色于使用参与者信息表(PIS)的标准同意程序。方法:该试验嵌套在2021年10月至2022年6月的终末人群随机调查中。参与者的视频同意或书面同意的随机化是在家庭层面进行的。我们使用问卷来评估研究理解的非劣效性。如果平均差异的95% ci不低于预先规定的1.98,则视频方法被认为不劣于标准同意程序。与随机选择的青年进行简短的定性讨论,进行专题分析,以探讨视频和PIS在同意方法中的可接受性。结果:共纳入921名参与者(54%为女性)。中位年龄为20岁(IQR 18-24岁)。两组的平均理解得分均为25.4/30。两组间理解的平均差异为-0.02 (95% CI -0.51 ~ 0.47),表明干预在理解研究信息方面具有非劣效性。青年(N=90)认为这两种同意方法都具有互动性和包容性。视频同意组的人认为这是令人兴奋的,关注的是年轻人。使用图像来解释程序加强了研究的感知可信度。然而,两种武器的高信息量降低了可接受性。结论:使用信息视频对研究信息的理解不逊于基于纸张的同意方法。在知情同意过程中使用信息视频有望成为一种以人为本、对环境敏感的方法,以加强知情同意过程,伦理委员会应予以鼓励。
Acceptability and effectiveness of a study information video in improving the research consent process for youth: a non-inferiority trial.
Introduction: Obtaining informed consent for research includes the use of information sheets, which are often long and may be difficult for participants to understand. We conducted a trial to investigate whether consent procedures using a study information video coupled with electronic consent were non-inferior to standard consent procedures using participant information sheets (PIS) among youth aged 18-24 years in Zimbabwe.
Methods: The trial was nested within an endline population-based survey for a cluster-randomised trial from October 2021 to June 2022. Randomisation of participants to video or paper-based consent was at household level. We assessed non-inferiority in comprehension of the study using a questionnaire. The video method was accepted as non-inferior to standard consent procedures if the 95% CIs of the mean difference did not fall below the prespecified margin of 1.98. Thematic analysis was conducted on brief qualitative discussions with randomly selected youth to explore the acceptability of video and PIS within consent methods.
Results: Overall, 921 participants were enrolled (54% female). The median age was 20 (IQR 18-24) years. The mean comprehension score was 25.4/30 in both arms. The mean difference in comprehension between arms was -0.02 (95% CI -0.51 to 0.47) showing non-inferiority of the intervention in comprehension of study information. Youth (N=90) described both consent methods as interactive and inclusive. Those in the video consent arm felt it was exciting and youth focused. The use of imagery to explain procedures strengthened the perceived trustworthiness of the research. However, the high volume of information in both arms reduced acceptability.
Conclusion: Comprehension of study information using an information video is non-inferior to a paper-based consent method. Using information videos for consent processes shows promise as a person-centred and context-sensitive approach to enhance the informed consent process and should be encouraged by ethics committees.
期刊介绍:
BMJ Global Health is an online Open Access journal from BMJ that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed content pertinent to individuals engaged in global health, including policy makers, funders, researchers, clinicians, and frontline healthcare workers. The journal encompasses all facets of global health, with a special emphasis on submissions addressing underfunded areas such as non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It welcomes research across all study phases and designs, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialized studies. The journal also encourages opinionated discussions on controversial topics.