Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25491659›Full record

Trial reportIntensive care medicine2015

Is there a role for physician involvement in introducing research to surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit? (The Approach trial: a pilot mixed methods study).

K E A Burns, L Rizvi, O M Smith, Y Lee, J Lee, M Wang, M Brown, M Parker, A Premji, D Leung and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01232621 (A Randomized Pilot Study of Different Methods of Approaching Substitute Decision Makers Regarding Research Participation in the Intensive Care Unit), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT01232621 phase2completednot on this map

A Randomized Pilot Study of Different Methods of Approaching Substitute Decision Makers Regarding Research Participation in the Intensive Care Unit: The Approach Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUnity Health TorontoRan2011 to 2012Enrolled138ConditionsCritical Care Trial Participation Consent by SDMArmsPhysician Introduction of research personnel
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Improving Research Enrollment of Severe Burn Patients.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association
    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

16 authors.

K E A BurnsInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, burnsk@smh.ca.
L Rizvi
O M Smith
Y Lee
J Lee
M Wang
M Brown
M Parker
A Premji
D Leung
M Hammond Mobilio
L Gotlib-Conn
R Nisenbaum
M Santos
Y Li
S Mehta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial comparing two strategies [physician (MD) vs. non-physician (non-MD)] for approaching substitute decision makers (SDMs) for research and to evaluate SDMs' experiences in being approached for consent.

methodsA pilot mixed methods study of first encounters with SDMs.

resultsOf 137 SDMs (162 eligibility events), 67 and 70 were randomized to MD and non-MD introductions, respectively. Eighty SDMs (98 events) provided consent and 21 SDMs (24 events) declined consent for studies, including 2 SDMs who provided and declined consent. We identified few missed introductions [4/52 (7.7 %)] and protocol violations [6/117 (5.1 %)], high comfort, satisfaction and acceptance scores and similar consent rates in both arms. SDMs provided consent significantly more often when a patient update was provided in the MD arm. Most SDMs (85.7 %) felt that physician involvement was inconsequential and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care; however, SDM experiences were closely related to their recall of being approached and recall was poor. SDMs highlighted 7 themes of importance to them in research surrogate decision-making.

conclusionSDMs prioritized the personal attributes of the person approaching them over professional designation and preferred physician time to be dedicated to patient care. A mixed methods design evaluated intervention fidelity and provided the rationale for not proceeding to a larger trial, despite achieving all feasibility metrics in the pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01232621.

Indexed as

Decision MakingIntensive Care UnitsPhysician's RoleResearch PersonnelCritical IllnessFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPilot ProjectsResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.