Background and objectivesVideo animations are used increasingly as patient information tools; however, we do not know their value compared to other formats of delivery, such as printed materials, verbal consultations or static images.MethodsThis review compares the effectiveness of video animations as information tools vs. other formats of delivery on patient knowledge, attitudes and cognitions, and behaviours. Included studies had the following features: controlled design with random or quasi-random allocation; patients being informed about any health condition or members of the public being informed about a public health topic; comparing video animation with another delivery format. Multiple digital databases were searched from 1996-June 2021. We also undertook citation searching. We used dual, independent decision-making for inclusion assessment, data extraction and quality appraisal. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Findings were reported using narrative synthesis.ResultsWe included 38 trials, focussed on: explaining medical or surgical procedures (n = 17); management of long-term conditions (n = 11); public health, health-promotion or illness-prevention (n = 10). Studies evaluated cartoon animations (n = 29), 3D animations (n = 6), or 2D animations, “white-board” animations or avatars (n = 1 each). Knowledge was assessed in 30 studies, showing greater knowledge from animations in 19 studies, compared to a range of comparators. Attitudes and cognitions were assessed in 21 studies, and animations resulted in positive outcomes in six studies, null effects in 14 studies, and less positive outcomes than standard care in one study. Patient behaviours were assessed in nine studies, with animations resulting in positive outcomes in four and null effects in the remainder. Overall risk of bias was “high” (n = 18), “some concerns” (n = 16) or “low” (n = 4). Common reasons for increased risk of bias were randomisation processes, small sample size or lack of sample size calculation, missing outcome data, and lack of protocol publication.DiscussionThe overall evidence base is highly variable, with mostly small trials. Video animations show promise as patient information tools, particularly for effects on knowledge, but further evaluation is needed in higher quality studies.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42021236296.

Introduction Video animations are increasingly available in education but without systematic evaluation. This review aimed to collate trials of animations versus other delivery, in student or qualified healthcare practitioners. Methods Included studies had the following features: controlled design with random or quasi-random allocation; student or qualified healthcare practitioners; comparing video animation with another format (e.g. textbook, lecture, static images); animation delivered instead of, or in addition to, another format. The primary outcome was knowledge; secondary outcomes were attitudes and cognitions, and behaviours. Multiple databases were searched from 1996-October 2022 using a defined strategy. We also undertook citation searching. Dual, independent decision-making was used for inclusion assessment, data extraction, and quality appraisal. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Findings were reported using narrative synthesis. Results We included 13 studies: 11 recruited student practitioners, two recruited qualified practitioners, total n = 1068. Studies evaluated cartoon animations or 2D/3D animations. Knowledge was assessed in ten studies, showing greater knowledge from animations in eight studies. Attitudes and cognitions were assessed in five studies; animations resulted in positive outcomes in three studies, no difference in one study, and worse outcomes in one study. Behaviours were assessed in three studies, animations producing positive outcomes in two studies and there was no difference in one study. Overall risk of bias was ‘high’ in ten studies and ‘some concerns’ in three. Discussion Overall the evidence base is small with mostly ‘high’ risk of bias. Video animations show promise in practitioner education, particularly for effects on knowledge, but bigger, better research is needed.

No abstract