Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Oct 31:4:1010779.
doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1010779. eCollection 2022.

The effectiveness of video animations as information tools for patients and the general public: A systematic review

Thirimon Moe-Byrne  1 , Ella Evans  2 , Nadia Benhebil  2 , Peter Knapp  1   2
Affiliations
Review

The effectiveness of video animations as information tools for patients and the general public: A systematic review

Thirimon Moe-Byrne et al. Front Digit Health. .

Abstract

Background and objectives: Video 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.

Methods: This 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.

Results: We 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.

Discussion: The 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 registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42021236296.

Keywords: attitudes and cognition; behaviors; information tools; knowledge; patients; video animations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of Bias in the Category 1 studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias in the Category 2 studies.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk of bias in the Category 3 studies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Fiksdal AS, Kumbamu A, Jadhav AS, Cocos C, Nelsen LA, Pathak J, et al. Evaluating the process of online health information searching: a qualitative approach to exploring consumer perspectives. J Med Internet Res. (2014) 16(10):e3341. 10.2196/jmir.3341 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Perez SL, Kravitz RL, Bell RA, Chan MS, Paterniti DA. Characterizing internet health information seeking strategies by socioeconomic status: a mixed methods approach. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. (2016) 16:107. 10.1186/s12911-016-0344-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online health information seeking behavior: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). (2021) 9(12):1740. 10.3390/healthcare9121740 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beranova E, Sykes C. A systematic review of computer-based softwares for educating patients with coronary heart disease. Patient Educ Couns. (2007) 66(1):21–8. 10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. von Wagner C, Semmler C, Good A, Wardle J. Health literacy and self-efficacy for participating in colorectal cancer screening: the role of information processing. Patient Educ Couns. (2009) 75(3):352–7. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.015 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources