Construction and validity of an educational video on rapid HIV testing for young black people.
Nikaelly Pinheiro Mota, Marli Teresinha Gimeniz Galvão, Nuno Damácio de Carvalho Félix and 5 others
PMID 41059825WHAT IT FOUND
Health judges did not agree on an HIV testing video script, but ten young Black reviewers unanimously approved it.
The finished video, three minutes and 22 seconds long, was rated suitable by health and media judges.
Key findings
01The educational video was three minutes and 22 seconds long and included animation, subtitles, narration, and Brazilian Sign Language.
02Health judges did not agree on the script, but ten young Black people who reviewed it unanimously agreed it was adequate.
03The finished video was rated suitable by health judges (total score 0.8, p=0.06) and media judges (total score 0.9).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 13 health judges and 10 young Black people reviewed the script, and only 12 health judges and 7 media judges reviewed the video, so the ratings may not represent broader views. Health judges did not agree on the script (p=0.02), even though the finished video was rated suitable. The study used non-probabilistic, intentional, snowball sampling and selected judges from a professional database, so participants may not have been representative. The study did not test whether the video changes HIV testing, knowledge, or prevention in young Black people. The authors reported difficulty obtaining feedback from social communication specialists. The storyline had no established guide and was developed at the researcher’s discretion.
Declared interests
The funding section reports support from CNPq and CAPES. It does not report other conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the video as evidence that HIV testing education works. The study only rated whether the video was suitable, not whether it changed testing, knowledge, or prevention, and health judges did not agree on the script (p=0.02).