Keeping users at the center: Developing a multimedia interface for informed consent

Technical Communication Quarterly

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 335-357

  Kim, Loel ^a   Young, Amanda J ^a   Neimeyer, Robert A ^a   Baker, Justin N ^b   Barfield, Raymond C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

^b ST JUDE CHILDREN S RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68049144975     PISSN: 10572252     EISSN: 15427625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10572250802100451     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. 1995. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 95 (2): 314-317.
2. Ames, A. L., Communicating effectively with interaction. Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. pp. 1-6. New York: ACM.
3. Angiolillo, A. L., Simon, C., Kodish, E., Lange, B., Noll, R. B., Ruccione, K., 2004. Staged informed consent for a randomized clinical trial in childhood leukemia. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 42 (5): 433-437.
4. Antonovsky, A., 1987. Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Bader, J. L., & Strickman-Stein, N. (2003). Evaluation of new multimedia formats for cancer communications. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5(3). Retrieved November 12, 2007 from http://www.jmir.org/2003/3/e16
6. Barfield, R. C., and Church, C., 2005. Informed consent in pediatric trials. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 17: 20-24.
7. Barton, E., 2001. Design in observational research on the discourse of medicine: Towards disciplined interdisciplinarity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15: 309-332.
8. Beck, C. S., Benitez, J. L., Edwards, A., Olson, A., Pai, A., and Torres, M. B., 2004. Enacting “health communication”: The field of health communication as constructed through publication in scholarly journals. Health Communication, 16 (4): 475-492.
9. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Omanson, R. C., and Pople, M. T., 1984. Improving the comprehensibility of stories: The effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly, 19: 263-277.
10. Ben-Bassat, T., Meyer, J., and Tractinsky, N., 2006. Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13 (2): 210-234.
11. Britto, M. T., DeVellis, R. F., Hornung, R. W., DeFriese, G. H., Atherton, H. D., and Slap, G. B., 2004. Health-care preferences and priorities of adolescents with chronic illnesses. Pediatrics, 114 (5): 1272-1280.
12. Brody, H., 1999. The biopsychosocial model, patient-centered care, and culturally sensitive practice. Journal of Family Practice, 48: 585-587.
13. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning SciencesChan, M. S., & Black, J. B. (2006). Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition. (pp. 64-70). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1160000/1150044/p64-chan.pdf?key1=1150044&key2=1496696911&coll=guide&dl=guide&cfid=45932170&cftoken=80660776
14. Chandler, P., and Sweller, J., 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8: 293-332.
15. Children's Hospital Boston. (2004). Medical research basics. Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.bostonchild.vitalconsent.com/bstnchld/index.html
16. Cohen, I. G., 2003. Therapeutic orphans, pediatric victims: The best pharmaceuticals for children act and existing pediatric human subject protection. Food and Drug Law Journal, 58: 661-710.
17. Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine. 2003. Consent for emergency medical services for children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 111 (3): 703-706.
18. Consent Solutions. (2006-2007). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.consentsolutions.com/
19. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. Center for Shared Decision Making. (2002). Retrieved November 12, 2007, from http://www.dhmc.org/webpage.cfm?site_id=2&org_id=108&gsec_id=0&sec_id=0&item_id=2486
20. De Angeli, A., Sutcliffe, A., and Hartmann, J., Interaction, usability and aesthetics: What influences users' preferences?. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. pp. 271-280. New York: ACM.
21. Elser, A.G. (1995). Using graphics to help users build mental models. STC Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 345-348). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.stc.org/confproceed/1995/PDFs/PG345348.pdf
22. Estlin, E. J., Cotterill, S., Pratt, C. B., Pearson, A. D. J., and Bernstein, M., 2000. Phase I trials in pediatric oncology: Perceptions of pediatricians from the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group and the Pediatric Oncology Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18: 1990-1905.
23. Farrell, T. (2001). Alternatives to user requirement gathering. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://infocentre.frontend.com/infocentre/articles/alternativestoreqgathering.html
24. Freimuth, V. S., 2006. Order out of chaos: The self-organization of communication following the anthrax attacks. Health Communication, 20 (2): 141-148.
25. Friedman, B., ed. 1997. Human values and the design of computer technology, New York: Cambridge University Press. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications
26. Friedman, B., Howe, D. C., and Felten, E., Informed consent in the Mozilla browser: Implementing value-sensitive design. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp. 247-257. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
27. Giles, T. D., and Still, B., 2005. A syntactic approach to readability. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35: 47-70.
28. Haley, W. E., Kasl-Godley, J., Larson, D. G., Niemeyer, R. A., and Kwilosz, D. M., 2003. Roles for psychologists in end-of-life care: Emerging models of practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34 (6): 626-633.
29. Hallnäs, L., and Redström, J., 2002. From use to presence: On the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9 (2): 106-124.
30. Halpern, J., 2003. Responding to the need behind the question “Doctor, if this were your child, what would you do?”. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 14 (1-2): 71-78.
31. Hays, T., 1996. Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short term and long term comprehension. Journal of Education Computer Research, 14: 139-155.
32. STC ProceedingsHeba, G. M. (1996). Digital architectures: SGML, HTML, multimedia and the structure of electronic documents. (pp. 213-216). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://tc.eserver.org/20107.html
33. Proceedings of SITEHuk, T., Steinke, M., & Floto, C. (2003). Helping teachers developing computer animations for improving learning in science education. (pp. 3022-3025). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.l3s.de/web/upload/documents/huk_site2003.pdf
34. Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., and Weeks, J. C., 2001. Quality of informed consent: A new measure of understanding among research subjects. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93 (2): 139-144.
35. Proceedings of the 3rd Nordic Workshop on Secure IT SystemsKarvonen, K., Cardholm, L., & Karlsson, S. (2000). Cultures of trust: A cross-cultural study on the formation of trust in an electronic environment, (pp. 89-100). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.tml.tkk.fi/∼kk/papers/karvonen_cardholm_nordsec_final.pdf
36. Kim, L., 2005. Tracing visual narratives: User-testing methodology for developing a multimedia museum show. Technical Communication, 52: 1-17.
37. Klein, J., 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
38. Kodish, E., 2003. Pediatric ethics and early-phase childhood cancer research: Conflicted goals and the prospect of benefit. Accountability in Research, 10: 17-25.
39. Kodish, E., Eder, M., Noll, R. B., Ruccione, K., Lange, B., Angiolillo, A., 2004. Communication of randomization in childhood leukemia trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291 (14): 470-475.
40. Kuniavsky, M., 2003. Observing the user experience: A practitioner's guide to user research, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
41. Lavie, T., and Tractinsky, N., 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of websites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60: 269-298.
42. Lindgaard, G., and Dudek, C., 2003. What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction?. Interacting with Computers, 15 (3): 429-452.
43. Mackay, W., Ethics, lies, and videotape. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 138-145. New York: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
44. Miller, M., 2000. Phase I cancer trials: A collusion of misunderstanding. Hastings Center Report, 30: 34-42.
45. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/4028b1_06_belmont%20report.pdf
46. Neimeyer, R. A., Moser, R., and Wittkowski, J., 2003. Assessing attitudes toward death: Psychometric considerations. Omega, 47: 45-76.
47. Neimeyer, R. A., Wittkowski, J., and Moser, R., 2004. Psychological research on death attitudes: An overview and evaluation. Death Studies, 28: 309-340.
48. Nielsen, J. (2005, June 27). Usability: Empiricism or ideology? Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox. Retrieved March 11, 2007, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050627.html
49. Nielsen, J., and Levy, J., 1994. Measuring usability: Preference vs. performance. Communications of the ACM, 37 (4): 66-75.
50. Nissenbaum, H., March 1998. “ Values in the design of computer systems ”. In Computers in society, 7th, Edited by: Schellenberg, K., March, 38-39. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark Publishers.
51. Norman, D., 1988. The design of everyday things, New York: Doubleday.
52. Norman, D., 2004. Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, New York: Basic Books.
53. O'Hair, D., Villagran, M. M., Wittenberg, E., Brown, K., Ferguson, M., Hall, H. T., 2003. Cancer survivorship and agency model: Implications for patient choice, decision making, and influence. Health Communication, 15 (2): 193-202.
54. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1982. Making health care decisions, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
55. Rapp, D. N., 2005. “ Mental models: Theoretical issues for visualizations in science education ”. In Visualizations in science education, Edited by: Gilbert, J. K., 43-60. The Netherlands: Springer.
56. STC ProceedingsRauch, T. L., Soderston, C., & Hill, G. W. (1996). Defining a user-centered design process. (pp. 341-344). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://tc.eserver.org/18227.html
57. Redish, J., 2000. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24 (3): 132-137.
58. Richard, N., & Yamada, S. (2006). Can an emotional agent motivate a user in achieving self-assigned tasks? Workshop on Effective Multimodal Dialogue Interfaces, 2006 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/∼lcavedon/finalpdfs/richard.pdf
59. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., and Becker, M. H., 1988. Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education Quarterly, 15: 175-183.
60. Rowan, K. E., 1991. When simple language fails: Presenting difficult science to the public. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 21: 369-382.
61. Rowan, K. E., and Hoover, D. M., 1994. “ Communicating risk to patients: Detecting, diagnosing, and overcoming lay theories ”. In Communicating risk to patients, 74-81. Rockville, MD: U. S. Pharmacopeial Convention.
62. Rust, C., 2006. Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design Issues, 20 (4): 76-85.
63. Schneider, C. E., 1998. The practice of autonomy: Patients, doctors, and medical decisions, New York: Oxford University Press.
64. Segal, J. Z., 2005. Health and the rhetoric of medicine, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
65. Selfe, C. L., and Selfe, R. J., 2004. “ The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones ”. In Central works in technical communication, Edited by: Johnson-Eilola, J., and Selber, S. A., 428-445. New York: Oxford University Press.
66. Selzer, J., 1983. “ What constitutes a “readable” technical style? ”. In New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, and practice, Edited by: Anderson, E. V., Brockmann, J., and Miller, C. R., 71-89. Farmington, NY: Baywood.
67. Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical ComputingSengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J. J. (2005). Reflective design. (pp. 49-58). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://alumni.media.mit.edu/∼jofish/writing/sengersetalrdfinalfinal.pdf
68. Simon, C., Eder, M., Raiz, P., Zyzanski, S., Pentz, R., and Kodish, E. D., 2001. Informed consent for pediatric leukemia research: Clinician perspectives. Cancer, 92 (3): 691-700.
69. Simon, C. M., Siminoff, L. A., Kodish, E. D., and Burant, C., 2004. Comparison of the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in pediatric and adult oncology. Journals of Clinical Oncology, 22 (13): 2708-2717.
70. Spool, J., Scanlon, T., Snyder, C., and DeAngelo, T., 1998. website usability: A designer's guide, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
71. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. (2008). 5-year cancer survival rates 1962 vs. present. Retrieved March 17, 2008, from http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=5b25e64c5b470110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=4bbafe08dc835110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD
72. Swenson, J., Constantinides, H., and Gurak, L. J., 2002. Audience-driven web design: An application to medical websites. Technical Communication, 49: 349-352.
73. Thompson, T., 2006. Seventy-five (count ‘em-75!) issues of Health Communication: An analysis of emerging themes. Health Communication, 20 (2): 117-122.
74. Tognazzini, B. (2007). First principles of interactive design. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstprinciples.html
75. Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: Empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues. Proceedings of CHI (pp.115-122). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://sigchi.org/chi97/proceedings/paper/nt.htm
76. Tractinsky, N., Cokhavi, A., Kirschenbaum, M., and Sharfi, T., 2006. Evaluating the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web pages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (11): 1071-1083.
77. Wixon, D., Whiteside, J., Good, M., and Jones, S., Building a user-defined interface. Proceedings of CHI ‘83 Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 24-27. New York: ACM.
78. Woodcock, A., Burns, J., Mount, S., Newman, R., & Gaura, E. (2005). Animating pervasive computing. SIGDOC (pp.116-122). Retrieved March 20, 2008, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1085313.1085341
79. Wright, P., 1999. Readability index: Life-line or weak link?. Hi Quality Matters, 5: 1-2.
80. Wright, P., 2003. Criteria and ingredients for successful patient information. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 26: 6-10.
81. Wright, P., John, C., and Belt, S., 2002/2003. Designing an interactive decision explorer. Information Design Journal, 11 (2/3): 252-260.
82. Young, A. J., and Flower, L. F., 2002. Patients as partners; patients as problem solvers. Health Communication, 14 (1): 69-97.
83. Young, A. J., Kim, L., Li, S., Baker, J., Schmidt, M., and Barfield, R., 2007. Autonomy and agency in pediatric research trials Manuscript submitted for publication
84. Young, A. J., and Rodriguez, K. L., 2006. The role of narrative in end-of-life care: Eliciting values and goals from text, subtext, and context. Health Communication, 19 (1): 49-59.