Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31698980›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019

Determinants of Patient and Surrogate Experiences With Acute Care Research Consent: A Key Informant Interview Study.

Victoria M Scicluna, Sara F Goldkind, Andrea R Mitchell, Rebecca D Pentz, Candace D Speight, Robert Silbergleit, Neal W Dickert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Victoria M SciclunaUniversity of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor MI.
Sara F GoldkindGoldkind Consulting, LLC Potomac MD.
Andrea R MitchellEmory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA.
Rebecca D PentzEmory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA.
Candace D SpeightEmory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA.
Robert SilbergleitUniversity of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor MI.
Neal W DickertEmory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Informed consent for acute myocardial infarction and stroke research is challenging. Time for enrollment decisions is limited, patients and family are usually stressed, and being asked to participate in research is often unexpected. Despite these barriers, patients and surrogates have reported a preference for prospective involvement in research decisions and generally positive views of the consent process. It is unknown what drives positive or negative consent experiences. These data are crucial to making consent processes more context appropriate. Methods and Results We conducted a qualitative interview study with 27 patients and surrogates enrolled in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials in the past 5 years. Purposive sampling from the P-CARE (Patient-Centered Approaches to Research Enrollment) study was based on participant characteristics and responses to initial patient-centered interviews. In-depth interviews used open-ended questions to explore factors influencing consent experiences. Qualitative descriptive analysis was performed utilizing a multilevel coding strategy. Participants identified specific researcher behaviors as important, including expressions of respect, professionalism, and nonpressuring communication. Participants preferred consent conversations focused on risks/benefits and the trial protocol. They had varying views of consent forms and communicated several reasons the form was valuable unrelated to informational content. Participants also valued postenrollment interactions as opportunities to ask questions and learn about the study. Conclusions Barriers to consent in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials are unavoidable, but participants identified productive ways to demonstrate respect for patients during enrollment conversations. These include key researcher behaviors, concentrating consent discussions on what participants find most important, and structured postenrollment follow-up.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCommunicationDecision MakingInformed ConsentPatient SelectionAdultAdult ChildrenAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionProfessionalismacute myocardial infarctionacute strokeinformed consentresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID31698980
PMCPMC6915273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.