Effectiveness of multimedia aids to enhance comprehension of research consent information: a systematic review.

Was the key dependent variable operationalized via standardized scale 100.0% or other appropriately established method? Were the conclusions justified by the data/findings? 100.0% Was (were) the sampled population(s) appropriate to the study aims/hypotheses (e.g., patient groups justified, presence or absence of nonpatient comparison group appropriate to study aims)? 90.0% Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly described and appropriate? 90.0% Were effects of enhanced consent tested relative to an appropriate control condition (e.g., routine consent rather than another experimental condition)? 90.0% Was the consent strategy tested in an ecologically valid context (e.g., either actual research consent, or, if simulated, functionally equivalent)? 90.0% Were statistical analyses appropriate to aims/hypotheses? 90.0% Were the key limitations of the study appropriately addressed in discussion/conclusions? 90.0% Are there any concerns about power (sample size)? 85.0% Was assignment to experimental conditions done with appropriate randomized assignment method? 85.0% Were demographic or other confounds between compared groups appropriately addressed via analyses and/or interpretation? 85.0% Was risk of type I and/or type II errors appropriately addressed? 65.0% Was one or more falsifiable a priori hypotheses specified/tested? 20.0% Were ratings of key dependent variable(s) done by blinded interviewers? 20.0% Were the design and implementation of the enhanced consent appropriately grounded in a specified theory or model? 15.0%