JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Although decision-makers in healthcare settings need to read and understand the validity of quantitative reports, information of research methods is not always well read. Presenting the methods in a structured way could improve the reading and perceived relevance for this important report section.

Objective:

To test the effect of a structured summary of methods used in a quantitative data report on reading behaviour and perceived importance by using computer-assisted eye-tracking.

Methods:

A nonrandomized pilot trial was performed in a computer laboratory setting with advanced medical students. They were asked to read a quantitative data report and the intervention arm was additionally offered a box with the key features of the methods used. Three data-collection methods were used to document reading behaviours and views of participants: eye-tracking during reading, written questionnaires, and face-to-face interviews.

Results:

We included 35 participants, 22 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention. The overall reading time of the methods was not different between the two study arms. The intervention arm found the information on methods less helpful for the decision than the control arm (4,09 versus 2,92). Participants who read the box more intensively tended to spent more time on the methods as a whole (Pearson correlation 0.81, P=.001).

Conclusions:

We found no indication that adding a structured summary of information on research methods used had increased the time spent on reading the methods. However, it resulted in a lower appreciation of the helpfulness of the information on methods. Future studies should focus on other methods to improve the attention for the methods used in in quantitative reports. Clinical Trial: No clinical trial was performed.