Evaluating the use of multimedia information when recruiting adolescents to orthodontics research: a randomised controlled trial Journal of Orthodontics

Abstract

Objective: The study aim was to compare two methods of providing information about the BAMP (Bone Anchored Maxillary Protraction) trial: standard printed information and multimedia websites, for their quality and ease of understanding, and impact on decision-making. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: Orthodontic out-patient clinic in the UK. Methods: Participants were 109 adolescents (aged 11-14) attending for orthodontic treatment. While awaiting treatment they were asked to imagine being recruited to the BAMP clinical trial. They were individually randomised to receive the printed or the multimedia website information (comprising text, animations and ‘talking head’ videos). After reading or viewing the information, they completing a 9-item Likert scale Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) (score range 0-36) plus 3 free text questions on their evaluation of the information. Results: 104 participants completed the questionnaire. Mean total DMQ scores were higher (more positive) in the website group (28.1 versus 27.0), although the difference was small and not statistically significant (p=0.20). Analysis of individual questionnaire items showed two statistically significant differences: the website information had higher ratings on ‘easy to understand’ (Z=3.03; p=.003) and ‘confidence in decision-making’ (Z=2.00; p=.044). On the three free text questions more positive and fewer negative comments were made about the websites than the printed information. Conclusions: In this hypothetical trial setting adolescent patients found that trial information conveyed on a multimedia website was easier to understand and made them more confident in their decision about trial participation. Their subjective evaluations of the website were also more positive and less negative than about the printed information. Multimedia information has potential to increase the quality of engagement and information exchange when seeking consent for research.