ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2014
Challenges in efficacy research: the case of feeding alternatives in patients with dementia.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Aspiration pneumonia in nursing literature-a mapping review.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Experiences and needs of home caregivers for enteral nutrition: A systematic review of qualitative research.Nursing open · 2022Pooled it
- Challenges of conducting research in long-term care facilities: a systematic review.BMC geriatrics · 2018Pooled it
- Behavioural approaches to recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a systematic mapping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- High tech and high touch: Recruitment strategies for enrolling African American stroke survivors in Community Based Intervention under Nurse Guidance after stroke (CINGS) trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability of RGN107 in the palliative wound care management of chronic wound symptoms.Journal of wound care · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo explore factors at the family caregiver and nursing home administrative levels that may affect participation in a clinical trial to determine the efficacy of hand feeding vs. percutaneous gastrostomy tube feeding in persons with late-stage dementia.
backgroundDecision-making regarding use of tube feeding vs. hand feeding for persons with late-stage dementia is fraught with practical, emotional and ethical issues and is not informed by high levels of evidence.
designQualitative case study.
methodsTranscripts of focus groups with family caregivers were reviewed for themes guided by behavioural theory. Analyses of notes from contacts with nursing home administrators and staff were reviewed for themes guided by an organizational readiness model. Data were collected between the years 2009-2012.
resultsFactors related to caregiver willingness to participate included understanding of the prognosis of dementia, perceptions of feeding needs and clarity about research protocols. Nursing home willingness to participate was influenced by corporate approval, concerns about legal and regulatory issues, and prior relationships with investigators.
conclusionParticipation in rigorous trials requires lengthy navigation of complex corporate requirements and training competent study staff. Objective deliberation by caregivers will depend on appropriate recruitment timing, design of recruitment materials and understanding of study requirements. The clinical standards and policy environment and the secular trends there-in have relevance to the responses of people at all levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.