Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021 Aug 19;17(1-2):144–166. doi: 10.1177/15562646211038819

Table 2.

Southeast Site Data and Results.

Consent document characteristics

Word count Readability (grade level)a Total number of slides Number of interactive questions Question/slide ratio

3,477 11 127 19 0.150
Participant demographics
Race
 American Indian/Alaskan native 1 (0.5%)
 Asian 20 (9.8%)
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 (0.0%)
 African American 32 (15.7%)
 Caucasian 136 (66.7%)
 More than one race 6 (2.9%)
 Other 6 (2.9%)
 Not reported 3 (1.5%)
Ethnicity
 Hispanic 18 (8.8%)
 Not Hispanic 181 (88.7%)
 Not reported 5 (2.5%
Age
 Mean 49.6
 Median 53
 Range 18–84
Income
 <$50,000 69 (33.8%)
 ≥$50,000 124 (60.8%)
 Not reported 11 (5.4%)
Education
 High school or less 15 (7.4%)
 Beyond high school 186 (91.2%)
Understanding and confidence in understanding scores
eIC F2F


Mean SD Mean SD Difference p

Mean understanding score (out of 100) 82.65 9.79 80.07 9.03 2.58 .090
Mean confidence in understanding score (out of 100) 91.63 8.87 89.58 13.79 2.05 .340
Intent to enroll in the biobank by condition
eIC F2F


Yes % Yes % Difference p

Intent to enroll 81 76.4 110 98.2 −29 0.000***

Note. eIC= electronic informed consent; F2F =face-to-face; Northeast-E = English-speaking Northeast; Northeast-S = Spanish-speaking Northeast;

***

<0.001.

a

Readability score results were calculated using the Fry readability index.