Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Human Factors

Date Submitted: Aug 18, 2019
Date Accepted: Nov 11, 2020

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Differences in Memory, Perceptions, and Preferences of Multimedia Consumer Medication Information: Experimental Performance and Self-Report Study

Monkman H, Kushniruk AW, Borycki EM, Sheets DJ, Barnett J

Differences in Memory, Perceptions, and Preferences of Multimedia Consumer Medication Information: Experimental Performance and Self-Report Study

JMIR Hum Factors 2020;7(4):e15913

DOI: 10.2196/15913

PMID: 33258780

PMCID: 7738255

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Differences in Memory, Perceptions, and Preferences of Multimedia Consumer Medication Information: A Performance and Self-Report Study

  • Helen Monkman; 
  • Andre W. Kushniruk; 
  • Elizabeth M. Borycki; 
  • Debra J. Sheets; 
  • Jeff Barnett

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 consumers’ opinions about the materials. These discrepant results highlight the value of using both subjective and objective 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.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Monkman H, Kushniruk AW, Borycki EM, Sheets DJ, Barnett J

Differences in Memory, Perceptions, and Preferences of Multimedia Consumer Medication Information: Experimental Performance and Self-Report Study

JMIR Hum Factors 2020;7(4):e15913

DOI: 10.2196/15913

PMID: 33258780

PMCID: 7738255

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.