Digital, multimedia information resources (MMIs) containing text, video, animation and pictures are a promising alternative to written participant information materials designed to inform children, adolescents and parents about healthcare trials, but little research has tested whether they are fit for purpose. This study employed a consecutive groups design and user testing questionnaire to assess whether participants were able to find and understand key information in multimedia resources. Two rounds of testing were completed. In each round, seven children aged 7–11 tested the MMI with a parent; six adolescents aged 12–17 and seven parents tested the MMI independently. After round 1, the resources were revised based on participant scores, behaviour and feedback. Round 1 identified problems with 2/10 information items (length of trial and use of insulin pump); only 3/20 participants could locate all information items without difficulty. After revisions, 14/20 participants scored a clear round. Information comprehension was high: 96% understood in round 1 and 99% in round 2. Participant feedback on the multimedia resources was positive, although presentation preferences varied. User testing was employed successfully with children, adolescents and parents to identify issues with, and improve, multimedia resources developed to inform potential healthcare trial participants.
AhmedRRaynorDKMcCafferyKJ, et al. (2014) The design and user-testing of a question prompt list for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. BMJ Open4(12). DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006585.
2.
AndersenMHKhalidMSBrooksEI (2016) Considerations and methods for usability testing with children. In: Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation: 5th International Conference, ArtsIT 2016 and First International Conference, DLI 2016 (eds BrooksALBrooksE), Esbjerg, Denmark, 2–3 May 2016, pp. 228–238. Berlin: Springer.
3.
BakerJNLeekACSalasHS, et al. (2013) Suggestions from adolescents, young adults, and parents for improving informed consent in phase 1 pediatric oncology trials. Cancer119: 4154–4161.
4.
BarfieldRCChurchC (2005) Informed consent in pediatric clinical trials. Current Opinion in Pediatrics17: 20–24.
5.
BlairJGregoryJWHughesD, et al. (2015) Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of insulin delivery by continuous subcutaneous infusion compared to multiple daily injections. Trials16: 163.
6.
BreakeyVRWariasAVIgnasDM, et al. (2013) The value of usability testing for Internet-based adolescent self-management interventions: “Managing Hemophilia Online”. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making13: 113.
7.
CaldwellPHDansLde VriesMC, et al. (2012) Standard 1: consent and recruitment. Pediatrics129(Suppl 3): S118–S123.
8.
CoxACFallowfieldLJJenkinsVA (2006) Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature. Supportive Care in Cancer14: 303–309.
9.
DavisSRPetersDCalvoRA, et al. (2017) “Kiss myAsthma”: Using a participatory design approach to develop a self-management app with young people with asthma. Journal of Asthma24: 1–10.
10.
DickinsonRRaynorDKKnappP, et al. (2016) Do patients use a headline section in a leaflet to find key information about their medicines? Findings from a user-test study. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science50: 581–591.
11.
EltoraiAENaqviSSGhanianS, et al. (2015) Readability of invasive procedure consent forms. Clinical and Translational Science8: 830–833.
12.
EnnisLWykesT (2016) Sense and readability: participant information sheets for research studies. The British Journal of Psychiatry208: 189–194.
13.
FloryJEmanuelE (2004) Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association292: 1593–1601.
14.
FordKSankeyJCrispJ (2007) Development of children’s assent documents using a child-centred approach. Journal of Child Health Care11: 19–28.
15.
Grootens-WiegersPDe VriesMCVossenTE, et al. (2015) Readability and visuals in medical research information forms for children and adolescents. Science Communication37: 89–117.
16.
GrossmanSAPiantadosiSCovaheyC (1994) Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?Journal of Clinical Oncology12: 2211–2215.
17.
HallinanZPForrestAUhlenbrauckG, et al. (2016) Barriers to change in the informed consent process: a systematic literature review. IRB38: 1–10.
HealyPGalvinSWilliamsonPR, et al. (2018) Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind alliance priority setting partnership—the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study. Trials19: 147.
21.
HunterDPierscionekBK (2007) Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research. Journal of Medical Ethics33: 659–662.
22.
JeffordMMileshkinLMatthewsJ, et al. (2011) Satisfaction with the decision to participate in cancer clinical trials is high, but understanding is a problem. Supportive Care in Cancer19: 371–379.
23.
JeffordMMooreR (2008) Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. The Lancet Oncology9: 485–493.
24.
KnappPRaynorDSilcockJ, et al. (2009a) Performance-based readability testing of participant information for a Phase 3 IVF trial. Trials10: 79.
25.
KnappPRaynorDKSilcockJ, et al. (2009b) Performance-based readability testing of participant materials for a phase I trial: TGN1412. Journal of Medical Ethics35: 573–578.
26.
KnappPWanklynPRaynorD, et al. (2010) Developing and testing a patient information booklet for thrombolysis used in acute stroke. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice18: 362–369.
27.
KnappPRaynorDKSilcockJ, et al. (2011) Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose?—A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine9: 89.
28.
LentzLDe JongM (1997) The evaluation of text quality: expert-focused and reader-focused methods compared. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication40: 224–234.
29.
ManM-SRickJBowerP (2015) Improving recruitment to a study of telehealth management for long-term conditions in primary care: two embedded, randomised controlled trials of optimised patient information materials. Trials16: 1–11.
30.
Martin-KerryJBowerPYoungB, et al. (2017) Developing and evaluating multimedia information resources to improve engagement of children, adolescents, and their parents with trials (TRECA study): study protocol for a series of linked randomised controlled trials. Trials18: 265.
31.
Martin-KerryJKnappPAtkinK, et al. (2018) Supporting children and young people when making decisions about joining clinical trials: qualitative study to inform multimedia website development (under review).
32.
McCartyCANairAAustinDM, et al. (2007) Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project. Public Health Genomics10: 2–9.
33.
National Institutes of Health (2013) How to write easy-to-read health materials. Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/etr.html(accessed 13 June 2018).
34.
NishimuraACareyJErwinPJ, et al. (2013) Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Medical Ethics14: 28.
35.
O’LonerganTAForster-HarwoodJE (2011) Novel approach to parental permission and child assent for research: improving comprehension. Pediatrics127: 917–924.
36.
RaynorDKnappPSilcockJ, et al. (2011) ‘User-testing’ as a method for testing the fitness-for-purpose of written medicine information. Patient Education and Counseling83: 404–410.
37.
RaynorDK (2013) User testing in developing patient medication information in Europe. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy9: 640–645.
38.
RossSGrantACounsellC, et al. (1999) Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology52: 1143–1156.
39.
SheppardEDHydeZFlorenceMN, et al. (2014) Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials. Foot and Ankle International35: 1282–1286.
40.
SimonCMSiminoffLAKodishED, et al. (2004) Comparison of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in pediatric and adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology22: 2708–2717.
41.
SimondsVWGarroutteEMBuchwaldD (2017) Health literacy and informed consent materials: designed for documentation, not comprehension of health research. Journal of Health Communication22: 1–10.
42.
StrykerJEWrayRJEmmonsKM, et al. (2006) Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret. Patient Education and Counseling63: 104–109.
43.
TaitARVoepel-LewisTLevineR (2015) Using digital multimedia to improve parents’ and children’s understanding of clinical trials. Archives of Disease in Childhood100: 589–593.
44.
TamNTHuyNTThoaLTB, et al. (2015) Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization93: 186–198.
45.
TerblancheMBurgessL (2010) Examining the readability of patient-informed consent forms. Journal of Clinical Trials2: 157–162.
46.
TreweekSLockhartPPitkethlyM, et al. (2013) Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open3. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360.
47.
TreweekSPitkethlyMCookJ, et al. (2018) Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews22. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.
World Medical Association (WMA) (2013) World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association310: 2191–2194.
50.
YamamotoMDoiHYamamotoK, et al. (2017) Adaptation of the European Commission-recommended user testing method to patient medication information leaflets in Japan. Drug Healthcare and Patient Safety9: 39.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
