Effect of a Family Media Use Plan on Media Rule Engagement Among Adolescents

Moreno, Megan A.; Binger, Kole; Zhao, Qianqian; Eickhoff, Jens

doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.5629

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All included trials reported acquiring consent from participants. Parental/caregiver consent was required in twelve of the trials [29-30, 34-35, 37-40, 42-45], waived in five of them [31, 33, 41, 46-47] and not reported in four [27-28, 32, 36]. Ten trials validated participants’ consent via attention-check questions, quality-check questions, ongoing consent, and orientation videos [29-31, 34, 37, 39, 41-42, 45, 47].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four trials [34-36, 44] used surveys sent to participants for completion and return, and one study [47] did not specify how they collected their data, only that it was done online. Three trials used validation to protect against duplicate or fraudulent entries to the trial [27, 36, 41]. Validation methods included open-ended questions, CAPTCHA questions, timers (to ensure participants were not simply clicking through the questions), flagging suspicious IP addresses or geographical coordinates, and short completion times.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirty-eight percent of the 21 trials (n = 8) collected input from children to inform their trial design or conduct [28, 32, 34-35, 37, 41-42, 44]. Half of these trials reported conducting pilot tests of their interventions for participants’ feedback.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Offline recruitment details are available in S6 Seven trials [27, 29, 31-33, 36, 38] sent links to their participants via email or a direct social media message to direct them to an e-consent form. Five trials [40][41][42][45][46] used an external website (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap, IRIS) that hosted their e-consent. Participants were automatically redirected through a click-link to an external website for the consent process.…”

Section: Recruitment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four trials [34][35][36]44] used surveys sent to participants for completion and return, and one study [47] did not specify how they collected their data, only that it was done online. Three trials used validation to protect against duplicate or fraudulent entries to the trial [27,36,41].…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Online randomised trials with children: A scoping review

Lepage

Conway

Goodson³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Paediatric trials must contend with many challenges that adult trials face but often bring additional obstacles. Decentralised trials, where some or all trial methods occur away from a centralised location, are a promising strategy to help meet these challenges. This scoping review aims to (a) identify what methods and tools have been used to create and conduct entirely online-decentralised trials with children and (b) determine the gaps in the knowledge in this field. This review will describe the methods used in these trials to identify their facilitators and the gaps in the knowledge. Methods: The methods were informed by guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We systematically searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase databases, trial registries, pre-print servers, and the internet. We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials conducted entirely online with participants under 18 published in English. A risk of bias assessment was completed for all included studies. Results: Twenty-one trials met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants was 14.6 years. Social media was the most common method of online recruitment. Most trials employed an external host website to store and protect their data. Duration of trials ranged from single-session interventions up to ten weeks. Fourteen trials compensated participants. Eight trials involved children in their trial design process; none reported compensation for this. Most trials had a low risk of bias in “random sequence generation”, “selective reporting”, and “other”. Most trials had a high risk of bias in “blinding participants and personnel”, “blinding of outcome assessment”, and “incomplete outcome data”. “Allocation concealment” was unclear in most studies. Conclusions: There was a lack of transparent reporting of the recruitment, randomisation, and retention methods used in many of the trials included in this review. Patient and public involvement (PPI) was not common, and the compensation of PPI partners was not reported in any study. Consent methods and protection against fraudulent entries to trials were creative and thoroughly discussed by some trials and not addressed by others. More work and thorough reporting of how these trials are conducted is needed to increase their reproducibility and quality. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was not necessary since all data sources used are publicly available.

show abstract