Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24195717›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2013

How experience makes a difference: practitioners' views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials.

Kerry Woolfall, Lucy Frith, Carrol Gamble, Bridget Young

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04535375 (Sonographic Quantification of Venous Circulation in the Preterm Brain), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04535375 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Sonographic Quantification of Venous Circulation in the Preterm Brain

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitair Ziekenhuis BrusselRan2021 to 2024Enrolled47ConditionsPrematurity, Extreme, Cerebral Circulatory Failure, Intraventricular HemorrhageArmsDoppler Ultrasound of venous cerebral circulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kerry WoolfallDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. K.Woolfall@liverpool.ac.uk.
Lucy Frith
Carrol Gamble
Bridget Young

Funding

Department of Health 08/13/47
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2008 UK legislation was amended to enable the use of deferred consent for paediatric emergency care (EC) trials in recognition of the practical and ethical difficulties of obtaining prospective consent in an emergency situation. However, ambiguity about how to make deferred consent acceptable to parents, children and practitioners remains. In particular, little is known about practitioners' views and experiences of seeking deferred consent in this setting.

methodsAs part of a wider study investigating consent methods in paediatric emergency care trials (called CONNECT), a 20 item online questionnaire was sent by email inviting practitioners (doctors and nurses) who were involved in talking with families about children's and young people's (aged 0-16 years) participation in UK EC trials. To ensure those with and without experience of deferred consent were included, practitioners were sampled using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling methods. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, whilst the constant comparative method was used to analyse qualitative data. Elements of a symbiotic empirical ethics approach was used to integrate empirical evidence and bioethical literature to explore the data and draw practice orientated conclusions.

resultsViews on deferred consent differed depending upon whether or not practitioners were experienced in this consent method. Practitioners who had no experience of deferred consent reported negative perceptions of this consent method; these practitioners were concerned about the impact that deferred consent would have upon the parent-practitioner relationship. In contrast, practitioners experienced in deferred consent described how families had been receptive to the consent method, if conducted sensitively and in a time appropriate manner. Experienced practitioners also described how deferred consent had improved recruitment, parental decision-making capacity and parent-practitioner relationships in the emergency care setting.

conclusionsThe views of practitioners with first-hand experience of deferred consent should be considered in the design and ethical review of future paediatric EC trials; the design and ethical review of such trials should not solely be informed by the beliefs of those without experience of using deferred consent. Further research involving parents and children is required to inform practitioner training and normative guidance on the use and appropriateness of deferred consent in emergency settings.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelChildChild, PreschoolClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingElectronic MailEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedNurses

Identifiers

PMID24195717
PMCPMC4228267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.