Cargando…
How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND: Internet research may raise older ethical issues in new forms or pose new issues. It has been recommended that debriefing information online be kept very short, with further information including study results made available if requested by participants. There are no empirical studies th...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Gunther Eysenbach
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510731/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23160103 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2186 |
_version_ | 1782251494302547968 |
---|---|
author | McCambridge, Jim Kypri, Kypros Wilson, Amanda |
author_facet | McCambridge, Jim Kypri, Kypros Wilson, Amanda |
author_sort | McCambridge, Jim |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Internet research may raise older ethical issues in new forms or pose new issues. It has been recommended that debriefing information online be kept very short, with further information including study results made available if requested by participants. There are no empirical studies that compare possible alternative methods of debriefing in online studies. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a randomized controlled trial evaluating how to implement the recommended approach by assessing the effects of two different approaches on accessing of additional information. METHODS: All 11,943 participants in the Effects of Study Design and Allocation (ESDA) study, which employed deception, were randomly assigned to one of two methods of debriefing: Group A received the debriefing information in the body of an email with links to protocol and results pages; Group B was presented with these links after clicking on an initial link in the body of the email to view the debriefing information on a website. Outcomes assessed were the proportions clicking on the links to the protocol and results summary and the time spent on these pages by those accessing them. RESULTS: The group who were presented with no debriefing information in the body of the email and went to a website for this information (Group B) were approximately twice as likely to subsequently access the protocol and the results summary. These differences between the two groups were highly statistically significant. Although these differences are clear, the overall proportions accessing such information were low, and there were no differences in mean time spent reading these pages. Only one quarter of Group B actually accessed debriefing information. CONCLUSIONS: In circumstances where the uptake of fuller information on study design, methods, and findings is deemed important, debriefing information may be better provided via a link and not included in the body of an email. Doing so may, however, reduce the extent of receiving any debriefing information at all. There is a wider need for high quality empirical studies to inform ethical evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12610000846022 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/) |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3510731 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Gunther Eysenbach |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35107312012-12-07 How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial McCambridge, Jim Kypri, Kypros Wilson, Amanda J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Internet research may raise older ethical issues in new forms or pose new issues. It has been recommended that debriefing information online be kept very short, with further information including study results made available if requested by participants. There are no empirical studies that compare possible alternative methods of debriefing in online studies. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a randomized controlled trial evaluating how to implement the recommended approach by assessing the effects of two different approaches on accessing of additional information. METHODS: All 11,943 participants in the Effects of Study Design and Allocation (ESDA) study, which employed deception, were randomly assigned to one of two methods of debriefing: Group A received the debriefing information in the body of an email with links to protocol and results pages; Group B was presented with these links after clicking on an initial link in the body of the email to view the debriefing information on a website. Outcomes assessed were the proportions clicking on the links to the protocol and results summary and the time spent on these pages by those accessing them. RESULTS: The group who were presented with no debriefing information in the body of the email and went to a website for this information (Group B) were approximately twice as likely to subsequently access the protocol and the results summary. These differences between the two groups were highly statistically significant. Although these differences are clear, the overall proportions accessing such information were low, and there were no differences in mean time spent reading these pages. Only one quarter of Group B actually accessed debriefing information. CONCLUSIONS: In circumstances where the uptake of fuller information on study design, methods, and findings is deemed important, debriefing information may be better provided via a link and not included in the body of an email. Doing so may, however, reduce the extent of receiving any debriefing information at all. There is a wider need for high quality empirical studies to inform ethical evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12610000846022 (http://www.anzctr.org.au/) Gunther Eysenbach 2012-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3510731/ /pubmed/23160103 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2186 Text en ©Jim McCambridge, Kypros Kypri, Amanda Wilson. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.11.2012. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper McCambridge, Jim Kypri, Kypros Wilson, Amanda How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial |
title | How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full | How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_fullStr | How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_short | How Should Debriefing Be Undertaken in Web-Based Studies? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_sort | how should debriefing be undertaken in web-based studies? findings from a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510731/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23160103 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2186 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mccambridgejim howshoulddebriefingbeundertakeninwebbasedstudiesfindingsfromarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kyprikypros howshoulddebriefingbeundertakeninwebbasedstudiesfindingsfromarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT wilsonamanda howshoulddebriefingbeundertakeninwebbasedstudiesfindingsfromarandomizedcontrolledtrial |