Original Research Article

Interactive multimedia consent for biobanking: a randomized trial

Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Purpose:

The potential of interactive multimedia to improve biobank informed consent has yet to be investigated. The aim of this study was to test the separate effectiveness of interactivity and multimedia at improving participant understanding and confidence in understanding of informed consent compared with a standard, face-to-face (F2F) biobank consent process.

Methods:

A 2 (face-to-face versus multimedia) × 2 (standard versus enhanced interactivity) experimental design was used with 200 patients randomly assigned to receive informed consent. All patients received the same information provided in the biobank’s nine-page consent document.

Results:

Interactivity (F(1,196) = 7.56, P = 0.007, partial η2 = 0.037) and media (F(1,196) = 4.27, P = 0.04, partial η2 = 0.021) independently improved participants’ understanding of the biobank consent. Interactivity (F(1,196) = 6.793, P = 0.01, partial η2 = 0.033), but not media (F(1,196) = 0.455, not significant), resulted in increased participant confidence in their understanding of the biobank’s consent materials. Patients took more time to complete the multimedia condition (mean = 18.2 min) than the face-to-face condition (mean = 12.6 min).

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated that interactivity and multimedia each can be effective at promoting an individual’s understanding and confidence in their understanding of a biobank consent, albeit with additional time investment. Researchers should not assume that multimedia is inherently interactive, but rather should separate the two constructs when studying electronic consent.

Genet Med 18 1, 57–64.

  • Subscribe to Genetics in Medicine for full access:

    $1066

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    , , Traditional and electronic informed consent for biobanking: a survey of U.S. biobanks. Biopreserv Biobank 2014;12:423–429.

  2. 2.

    , , , et al. Testing an online, dynamic consent portal for large population biobank research. Public Health Genomics 2015;18:26–39.

  3. 3.

    , , , , Informed consent for biobanking: consensus-based guidelines for adequate comprehension. Genet Med 2015;17:226–233.

  4. 4.

    , Biobanking 3.0: evidence based and customer focused biobanking. Clin Biochem 2014;47:300–308.

  5. 5.

    Biobanking perspective on challenges in sample handling, collection, processing, storage, analysis and retrieval for genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics data. Anal Methods 2011;3:1029–1038.

  6. 6.

    , , , et al. Effects of informed consent for individual genome sequencing on relevant knowledge. Clin Genet 2012;82:408–415.

  7. 7.

    , , , , Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 2009;149A:188–198.

  8. 8.

    , , , et al. An investigation of the efficacy of electronic consenting interfaces of research permissions management system in a hospital setting. Int J Med Inform 2013;82:854–863.

  9. 9.

    , , , , , Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:28.

  10. 10.

    , , , , Improving communication when seeking informed consent: a randomised controlled study of a computer-based method for providing information to prospective clinical trial participants. Med J Aust 2010;192:388–392.

  11. 11.

    , , , Interactive informed consent: randomized comparison with paper consents. PLoS One 2013;8:e58603.

  12. 12.

    , , , et al. A rural community’s involvement in the design and usability testing of a computer-based informed consent process for the Personalized Medicine Research Project. Am J Med Genet A 2014;164A:129–140.

  13. 13.

    Multimedia Learning, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; New York, 2009.

  14. 14.

    , The modality principle in multimedia learning. In: (ed). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005:147–158.

  15. 15.

    Introduction to multimedia learning. In: (ed). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2005:1–16.

  16. 16.

    Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2002;2002:55–71.

  17. 17.

    , , Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. J Educ Psychol 1995;87:319–334.

  18. 18.

    , Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, 2001.

  19. 19.

    , A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol Rev 2007;19:469–508.

  20. 20.

    , , Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev 1998;10:251–296.

  21. 21.

    , Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions. Educ Psychol Rev 2005;17:147–177.

  22. 22.

    , Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cogn Instr 1991;8:293–332.

  23. 23.

    , Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 2003;38:43–52.

  24. 24.

    , Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004;292:1593–1601.

  25. 25.

    , , , Interventions to improve patient comprehension in informed consent for medical and surgical procedures: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 2011;31:151–173.

  26. 26.

    , Defining interactivity: a qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media and Society 2000;2:157–179.

  27. 27.

    Interactivity in the context of designed experiences. Journal of Interactive Advertising 2000;1:3–14.

  28. 28.

    The concept of interactivity—revisited: four new typologies for a new media landscape. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and Video. ACM: New York, NY, 2008.

  29. 29.

    Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media and Society 2002;4:355–383.

  30. 30.

    , The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette 2009;71:373–391.

  31. 31.

    Interactivity demystified: a structural definition for distance education and intelligent CBT. Educational Technology 2000;40:5–16.

  32. 32.

    Office for Human Research Protections, US Department of Health and Human Services. General requirements for informed consent (45CFR46.116). 45 C.F.R. Sect. 46.116, 2009, . Accessed 20 November 2014.

  33. 33.

    , , , et al. Active choice but not too active: public perspectives on biobank consent models. Genet Med 2011;13:821–831.

  34. 34.

    , Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development, 3rd edn. Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, 2001.

  35. 35.

    Usability test script: Advanced Common Sense, 2012, . Accessed 18 July 2012.

  36. 36.

    , , , , Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:139–147.

  37. 37.

    , , A videotape intervention to enhance the informed consent process for medical and psychiatric treatment research. Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:186–188.

  38. 38.

    , , , et al.; HIV Network for Prevention Trials Vaccine Preparedness Study. Randomized, controlled evaluation of a prototype informed consent process for HIV vaccine efficacy trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003;32:161–169.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the National Human Genome Institute at the National Institutes of Health (R21HG006293).

The authors thank Joyce Craig, Abe Klein, Jamie L’Heureux, Jenni Rigdon, and Laura Shinkunas, as well as Jeff Murray, University of Iowa Biobank Director, for their assistance with and support of this study. In addition, the authors thank the following consultants for their excellent feedback: Wendy Foth, Wendy Wolf, and Jennifer McCormick. Excellent feedback from Andrew Bertolatus, Betsy Chrischilles, Lauris Kaldjian.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Program in Bioethics and Humanities, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    • Christian M. Simon
  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    • Christian M. Simon
  3. Law, Health Policy & Disability Center, College of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    • David W. Klein
    •  & Helen A. Schartz

Authors

  1. Search for Christian M. Simon in:

  2. Search for David W. Klein in:

  3. Search for Helen A. Schartz in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian M. Simon.