The Role of Nonverbal and Verbal Communication in a Multimedia Informed Consent ProcessThis study was grant funded by NIH National Human Genome Research Institute as a part of the eMERGE project, grant number 5 U01 U01HG04608. The authors would like to thank Wendy Foth, the primary research coordinator for PMRP at the Marshfield Clinic for participating in the study. The authors would also like to thank the Marshfield Clinic staffs who were involved with the larger study objectives: Valerie D. McManus, Carol J. Waudby, Joe Ellefson, Dave G. Hoffman, Nancy Stueland-Adamski. The authors would also like to thank the four anonymous reviewers for their comments.
16 February 2011
Accepted: 05 May 2011
16 December 2017 (online)
Objective: Nonverbal and verbal communication elements enhance and reinforce the consent form in the informed consent process and need to be transferred appropriately to multimedia formats using interaction design when re-designing the process.
Methods: Observational, question asking behavior, and content analyses were used to analyze nonverbal and verbal elements of an informed consent process.
Results: A variety of gestures, interruptions, and communication styles were observed. Conclusion: In converting a verbal conversation about a textual document to multimedia formats, all aspects of the original process including verbal and nonverbal variation should be one part of an interaction community-centered design approach.
- 1 Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participant comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarsh 2007; 39: 273-280.
- 2 Eakin BL, Brady JS, Lusk SL. Creating a tailored, multimedia, computer-based intervention. Comput Nurs 2001; 19 152–160 quiz 161-163.
- 3 Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA 2004; 292: 1593-1601.
- 4 Green MJ. Use of an educational computer program before genetic counseling for breast cancer susceptibility: Effects on duration and content of counseling sessions. Genetics in Medicine 2005; 7: 221.
- 5 Green MJ, Biesecker BB, McInerney AM, Mauger D, Fost N. An interactive computer program can effectively educate patients about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet 2001; 103: 16-23.
- 6 Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 485-493.
- 7 Jimison HB, Sher PP, Appleyard R, LeVernois Y. The use of multimedia in the informed consent process. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998; 5: 245-256.
- 8 Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Gabram SG, Nightingale C, Philipson EH. Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to effect change. J Investig Med 1995; 43: 459-467.
- 9 Reider AE, Dahlinghaus AB. The impact of new technology on informed consent. Compr Ophthalmol Update 2006; 7: 299-302.
- 10 Rosoff AJ. Informed consent in the electronic age. Am J Law Med 1999; 25: 367-367.
- 11 Ryan RE, Prictor MJ, McLaughlin KJ, Hill SJ. Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 (1). 1-CD003717.
- 12 Agre P, Rapkin B. Improving informed consent: A comparison of four consent tools. IRB: Ethics and Human Research 2003; 25: 1-7.
- 13 McCarty CA, Nair A, Austin DM, Giampietro PF. Informed consent and subject motivation to participate in a large, population-based genomics study: the Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project Community. Genet 2007; 10: 2-9.
- 14 McCarty CA, Chapman-Stone D, Derfus T, Giampietro PF, Fost N. Marshfield Clinic PMRP Community Advisory Group.. Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project. Am J Med Genet A 2008; 146A 3026-3033.
- 15 Issa MM, Setzer E, Charaf C, Webb AL, Derico R, Kimberl IJ, Fink AS. Informed versus uninformed consent for prostate surgery: the value of electronic consents. J Urol 2006; 176: 694-9 discussion 699.
- 16 Paterick TJ, Paterick BB, Paterick TE. Expanding electronic transmissions in the practice of medicine and the role of electronic informed consent. Journal of Patient Safety 2008; 4: 217.
- 17 Tang JC. Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1991; 34: 143-160.
- 18 Bickmore TW, Pfeifer LM, Paasche-Orlow MK. Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 75: 315-320.
- 19 Whishaw IQ, Sacrey LR, Travis SG, Gholamrezaei G, Karl JM. The functional origins of speech-related hand gestures. Behav Brain Res 2010; 214: 206-215.
- 20 Clark A. Being there: putting brain, body, and world together again Cambridge. Mass: MIT Press; 1997
- 21 Cook SW, Tanenhaus MK. Embodied communication: Speakers’ gestures affect listeners’ actions. Cognition 2009; 113: 98-104.
- 22 Galliher JM, Post DM, Weiss BD, Dickinson LM, Manning BK, Staton EW, Brown JB, Hickner JM, Bonham AJ, Ryan BL, Pace WD. Patients’ question-asking behavior during primary care visits: A report from the AAFP national research network. Ann Fam Med 2010; 8: 151-159.
- 23 Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 107-115.