What do parents think of using informational videos to support recruitment for parenting trials? A qualitative study.
Informational video
Informed consent
Parents
Qualitative
Recruitment
Trial
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Dec 2021
04 Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
06
05
2021
accepted:
13
11
2021
entrez:
5
12
2021
pubmed:
6
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lower than expected recruitment and retention rates are common challenges in parenting trials-particularly for community-based trials targeting parents of young children that rely on face-to-face recruitment by frontline workers. Recruitment requires parental informed consent, yet information sheets have been criticized for being lengthy and complex, and particularly challenging for parents with low literacy. Recent innovations include 'talking head' information videos. This paper aims to explore parent perceptions of using a 'talking head' video to support informed consent, recruitment, and retention procedures in parenting trials. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of 24 mothers recruited after their final follow-ups in two different parenting trials in Denmark. Before consenting to participate in the trials, parents were invited to view a video of a member of the study team giving information about the study, and again before the interviews for the current study. The audio data was transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted. We identified three overarching themes: (1) general impression of the video, (2) thoughts on participation in research, and (3) recruitment and retention. Participants were generally positive in their appraisal of the two talking head informational videos. We found that participants felt that a mix of paper-based and video-based sources of information would enable them to make an informed choice about whether to participate in a research study. We also found that a professionally produced video featuring a key member of the study team produced a feeling of commitment to the study that could impact retention rates. Informational videos are acceptable to parents; however, co-production or participant/patient involvement in the development of such videos is recommended. Informational videos may not increase recruitment but have the potential for improving retention. Key design recommendations are to ensure a 'professional' look to the video, to supplement videos with paper-based information, to keep the length to < 3 min, and for the 'talking head' part to feature a key member of the study team.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Lower than expected recruitment and retention rates are common challenges in parenting trials-particularly for community-based trials targeting parents of young children that rely on face-to-face recruitment by frontline workers. Recruitment requires parental informed consent, yet information sheets have been criticized for being lengthy and complex, and particularly challenging for parents with low literacy. Recent innovations include 'talking head' information videos. This paper aims to explore parent perceptions of using a 'talking head' video to support informed consent, recruitment, and retention procedures in parenting trials.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of 24 mothers recruited after their final follow-ups in two different parenting trials in Denmark. Before consenting to participate in the trials, parents were invited to view a video of a member of the study team giving information about the study, and again before the interviews for the current study. The audio data was transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified three overarching themes: (1) general impression of the video, (2) thoughts on participation in research, and (3) recruitment and retention. Participants were generally positive in their appraisal of the two talking head informational videos. We found that participants felt that a mix of paper-based and video-based sources of information would enable them to make an informed choice about whether to participate in a research study. We also found that a professionally produced video featuring a key member of the study team produced a feeling of commitment to the study that could impact retention rates.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Informational videos are acceptable to parents; however, co-production or participant/patient involvement in the development of such videos is recommended. Informational videos may not increase recruitment but have the potential for improving retention. Key design recommendations are to ensure a 'professional' look to the video, to supplement videos with paper-based information, to keep the length to < 3 min, and for the 'talking head' part to feature a key member of the study team.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34863256
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05826-0
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05826-0
pmc: PMC8642858
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
872Subventions
Organisme : TrygFonden
ID : 7-12-0195
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Trials. 2016 May 26;17(1):263
pubmed: 27229153
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Apr 29;5(4):e25299
pubmed: 33872184
Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129 Suppl 3:S118-23
pubmed: 22661757
BMC Med. 2011 Jul 21;9:89
pubmed: 21777435
Ethics Behav. 1991;1(4):239-52
pubmed: 11651140
Prev Sci. 2018 Jul;19(5):674-684
pubmed: 28444518
Soc Sci Med. 2018 Jan;196:175-181
pubmed: 29190538
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Sep;54(9):877-83
pubmed: 11520646
J Health Commun. 2011 Jan;16(1):3-16
pubmed: 21128152
Trials. 2017 Jun 8;18(1):265
pubmed: 28595613
Trials. 2010 Mar 22;11:31
pubmed: 20307273
Health Expect. 2021 Oct;24(5):1551-1556
pubmed: 34339528
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 03;8(7):e67352
pubmed: 23844006
Trials. 2020 Oct 15;21(1):856
pubmed: 33059763
J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008 Nov;30(11):823-8
pubmed: 18989159
Int J Nurs Stud. 2018 Dec;88:85-96
pubmed: 30219697
Patient Educ Couns. 2021 May;104(5):998-1017
pubmed: 33339657
Am J Surg. 2009 Sep;198(3):420-35
pubmed: 19716887
Trials. 2014 May 22;15:182
pubmed: 24886627
Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(11):3-13
pubmed: 26575802
Contemp Clin Trials. 2006 Oct;27(5):441-8
pubmed: 16798101
J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999 Apr;4(2):112-21
pubmed: 10387403
Pediatrics. 1990 Jan;85(1):58-62
pubmed: 2296494
BMJ Open. 2012 May 30;2(3):
pubmed: 22649171
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Jul 23;14:28
pubmed: 23879694
J Med Ethics. 2005 Nov;31(11):664-9
pubmed: 16269566
Arch Dis Child. 2015 Jun;100(6):589-93
pubmed: 25829422
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Jun;167(6):561-6
pubmed: 23546617
Bull World Health Organ. 2015 Mar 1;93(3):186-98H
pubmed: 25883410
Fam Pract. 2007 Dec;24(6):601-3
pubmed: 17872907
Res Nurs Health. 2008 Aug;31(4):391-8
pubmed: 18203128
J Child Health Care. 2019 Sep;23(3):468-482
pubmed: 30384772
Pediatrics. 2007 Apr;119(4):e849-59
pubmed: 17403829
Scand J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Psychol. 2020 Sep 15;8:123-134
pubmed: 33564628
BMJ Open. 2013 Feb 07;3(2):
pubmed: 23396504
QJM. 2008 Aug;101(8):625-9
pubmed: 18487271
Trials. 2015 Sep 02;16:386
pubmed: 26329163
Trials. 2006 Apr 07;7:9
pubmed: 16603070
JAMA. 2015 Feb 3;313(5):463-4
pubmed: 25647199
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):MR000013
pubmed: 20091668
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 14;11(12):e0167592
pubmed: 27974857
Trials. 2016 Apr 08;17:164
pubmed: 27056367