Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28554930›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Exploring the acceptability of a 'limited patient consent procedure' for a proposed blood-borne virus screening programme: a Delphi consensus building technique.

Denise Crane, Emily J Henderson, David R Chadwick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Denise CraneSchool of Medicine Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Emily J HendersonSchool of Medicine Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
David R ChadwickCentre for Clinical Infection, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify components of a proposed blood-borne virus (BBV) population screening programme and its associated consent procedure that both the public and health practitioners (HPs) would find acceptable. The proposed BBV screening system would aim to reduce late diagnosis of BBVs and be used in patients undergoing routine blood tests, aided by risk stratification software to target individuals at higher risk of infection.

designA Delphi technique was used to build consensus among two separate groups, public participants and HPs in England.

methodsA survey incorporating vignettes was developed, with input from an external panel of experts. Over three rounds, 46 public participants and 37 HPs completed the survey, rating statements on a four-point Likert scale. The survey covered issues around stigma and sensitivity, the use of risk stratification algorithms and 'limited' patient consent (ie, preinformed of the option to 'opt-out'). Consensus was defined as >70% of participants agreeing or disagreeing with each statement.

resultsConsensus was achieved among both groups in terms of acceptability of the screening programme. There was also consensus on using patient data to risk-stratify screening algorithms and the need to obtain some form of consent around the time of drawing blood.

conclusionsThis study found that the special protected status of HIV in England is no longer deemed necessary today and hinders appropriate care. We propose that a novel 'limited consent procedure' could be implemented in future screening programmes.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareSocial StigmaAdultAgedConsensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueEnglandFemaleHepatitis, Viral, HumanHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesconsensus buildingconsenthepatitis Bhepatitis CHIVscreeningtesting

Identifiers

PMID28554930
PMCPMC5729981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.