Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26384724›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

How parents and practitioners experience research without prior consent (deferred consent) for emergency research involving children with life threatening conditions: a mixed method study.

Kerry Woolfall, Lucy Frith, Carrol Gamble, Ruth Gilbert, Quen Mok, Bridget Young, CONNECT advisory group

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. 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 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  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. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kerry WoolfallDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucy FrithDepartment of Health Service Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ruth GilbertUCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Quen MokGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, Great Ormond Street, London WC1N 3JH, London, UK.
Bridget YoungDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
CONNECT advisory group
University of Liverpool · GBGreat Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1Medical Research Council MR/L004933/1- R/N42Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT095874MF
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAlternatives to prospective informed consent to enable children with life-threatening conditions to be entered into trials of emergency treatments are needed. Across Europe, a process called deferred consent has been developed as an alternative. Little is known about the views and experiences of those with first-hand experience of this controversial consent process. To inform how consent is sought for future paediatric critical care trials, we explored the views and experiences of parents and practitioners involved in the CATheter infections in CHildren (CATCH) trial, which allowed for deferred consent in certain circumstances.

designMixed method survey, interview and focus group study.

participants275 parents completed a questionnaire; 20 families participated in an interview (18 mothers, 5 fathers). 17 CATCH practitioners participated in one of four focus groups (10 nurses, 3 doctors and 4 clinical trial unit staff).

setting12 UK children's hospitals.

resultsSome parents were momentarily shocked or angered to discover that their child had or could have been entered into CATCH without their prior consent. Although these feelings resolved after the reasons why consent needed to be deferred were explained and that the CATCH interventions were already used in clinical care. Prior to seeking deferred consent for the first few times, CATCH practitioners were apprehensive, although their feelings abated with experience of talking to parents about CATCH. Parents reported that their decisions about their child's participation in the trial had been voluntary. However, mistiming the deferred consent discussion had caused distress for some. Practitioners and parents supported the use of deferred consent in CATCH and in future trials of interventions already used in clinical care.

conclusionsOur study provides evidence to support the use of deferred consent in paediatric emergency medicine; it also indicates the crucial importance of practitioner communication and appropriate timing of deferred consent discussions.

Indexed as

CommunicationEmergency TreatmentEuropeFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMaleNursesParentsPhysiciansProfessional-Patient RelationsProspective StudiesResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesMEDICAL ETHICSQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26384724
PMCPMC4577875
OpenAlexW2226322964

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.