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).
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.
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.
A Randomized Pilot Study of Different Methods of Approaching Substitute Decision Makers Regarding Research Participation in the Intensive Care Unit: The Approach Study
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Proxy decision-making about participation in palliative care research: A scoping review.Palliative medicine · 2026Article
- ICU Care Team's Perception of Clinical Research in the ICU: A Cross-Sectional Study.Critical care explorations · 2024Article
- Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022Article
- Feasibility of implementingBMJ open · 2021Observational
- Evaluation of a strategy for enrolling the families of critically ill patients in research using limited human resources.PloS one · 2017Article
- Increasing participation in critical care studies: the need to understand surrogate decision-makers for critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2015Article
- Improving Research Enrollment of Severe Burn Patients.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
25491659What 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.