ArticlePloS one2015
Engaging the Public to Identify Opportunities to Improve Critical Care: A Qualitative Analysis of an Open Community Forum.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and Family Representation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 3 Medical and Surgical Journals: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Patient discharge from intensive care: an updated scoping review to identify tools and practices to inform high-quality care.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Article
- A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Review
- Incorporating and evaluating citizen engagement in health research: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Putting the Patient First: A Scoping Review of Patient Desires in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2021Article
- Scale-up and sustainability of a personalized end-of-life care intervention: a longitudinal mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Patients as Researchers in Adult Critical Care Medicine. Fantasy or Reality?Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2020Article
- A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of family-partnered delirium prevention, detection, and management in critically ill adults: the ACTIVATE study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Critical Care Strategic Clinical Network: Information infrastructure ensures a learning health system.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019Article
- Talking About Your Prostate: Perspectives from Providers and Community Members.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- The contribution of a MOOC to community discussions around death and dying.BMC palliative care · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients.
designA qualitative content analysis of an open community forum (Café Scientifique).
settingPublic venue in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
participantsMembers of the general public including patients, families of patients, health care providers, and members of the community at large.
methodsA panel of researchers, decision-makers, and a family member led a Café Scientifique, an informal dialogue between the populace and experts, over three-hours to engage the public to understand how to improve the care of critically ill patients. Conventional qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data. The inductive analysis occurred in three phases: coding, categorizing, and developing themes.
resultsThirty-eight members of the public (former ICU patients, family members of patients, providers, community members) attended. Participants focused the discussion and provided concrete suggestions for improvement around communication (family as surrogate voice, timing of conversations, decision tools) and provider well-being and engagement, as opposed to medical interventions in critical care.
conclusionsCafé participants believe patient and family centered care is important to ensure high-quality care in the ICU. A Café Scientifique is a valuable forum to engage the public to contribute to priority setting areas for research in critical care, as well as a platform to share lived experience. Research stakeholders including health care organizations, governments, and funding organizations should provide more opportunities for the public to engage in meaningful conversations about how to best improve healthcare.
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.