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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCambridge, Jim, Kypri, Kypros, Wilson, Amanda
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