JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Electronic health resources are becoming prevalent. However, Consumer Medication Information (CMI) is still predominantly text based. Incorporating multimedia into CMI (e.g., images, narration) may improve consumers’ memory of the information as well as their perceptions and preferences of these materials.

Objective:

This study examined whether adding images narration to CMI impacted a) memory; b) participants perceptions of comprehensibility, utility, or design quality; and c) overall preferences.

Methods:

We presented participants’ (N = 36) CMI in three formats: 1) Text, 2) Text + Images, and 3) Narration + Images and subsequently asked them to recall information. After seeing all three formats, participants rated the three CMI formats in terms of comprehensibility, utility, design quality and ranked the formats from favourite to least favourite.

Results:

Interestingly, no significant differences in memory were observed, F(2, 70) = 0.1, P = 0.901. Thus, this study did not find evidence to support Mayer’s (2001) multimedia or modality principles in the context of CMI. Despite the absence of effects on memory, CMI format significantly impacted perceptions of the CMI formats. Specifically, participants rated the Text + Images format highest in terms of comprehensibility, 2(2) = 26.5, P < .001 and design quality, 2(2) = 35.69, P < .001. Although the omnibus test suggested a difference in utility ratings as well, 2(2) = 8.21, P < .016, after correcting for multiple comparisons there were no significant differences in utility ratings. Consistent with perceptions findings, the preference ranks yielded a significant difference, c2(2) = 26.00, P < .001, whereby participants preferred the Text + Images format as overall. Indeed, 27 participants (75%) chose the Text + Images as their favourite. Thus, although there were no objective memory differences between the formats, we observed subjective differences in comprehensibility, design quality, and overall preferences.

Conclusions:

This study revealed that although multimedia did not appear to influence memory for CMI it did impact participants’ opinions about the materials. The lack of observed differences in memory may have been due to ceiling effects, memory rather than understanding as an index of learning, the fragmented nature of the information in CMI itself, or the size or characteristics of the sample (i.e., young, educated, adequate health literacy skills). The differences in the subjective (i.e., perceptions and preferences) and objective (i.e., memory) results highlight the value of using both types of measures. Moreover, findings from this could be used to inform future research on how CMI could be designed to better suit the preferences of consumers and potentially increase the likelihood CMI is used. Additional research is warranted to explore whether multimedia does impact memory for CMI under different conditions (e.g., older participants, lower levels of health literacy, more difficult stimuli or extended time for decay).