Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31871255›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Synthesis of qualitative research studies regarding the factors surrounding UK critical care trial infrastructure.

Natalie Pattison, Nishkantha Arulkumaran, Geraldine O'Gara, Bronwen Connolly, Sally Humphreys, Tim Walsh, Philip Hopkins, Paul Dark

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Report of two cases of endobronchial tumour mass resection in children.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Natalie PattisonSchool of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire and East & North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Hertfordshire, UK natalie.pattison@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-6771-8733
Nishkantha ArulkumaranFlorence Nightingale Foundation, London, UK.
Geraldine O'GaraNursing, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Bronwen ConnollyLane Fox Respiratory Unit, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5676-5497
Sally HumphreysCritical Care, West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust, Bury Saint Edmunds, UK.
Tim WalshCritical Care, University of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Philip HopkinsCritical Care, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Paul DarkIntensive Care Unit, University of Manchester, Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBFlorence Nightingale Foundation · GBKing's College Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBWest Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2015-08-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conducting clinical trials in critical care is integral to improving patient care. Unique practical and ethical considerations exist in this patient population that make patient recruitment challenging, including narrow recruitment timeframes and obtaining patient consent often in time-critical situations. Units currently vary significantly in their ability to recruit according to infrastructure and level of research activity.

aimTo identify variability in the research infrastructure of UK intensive care units and their ability to conduct research and recruit patients into clinical trials.

designWe evaluated factors related to intensive care patient enrolment into clinical trials in the UK. This consisted of a qualitative synthesis carried out with two datasets of in-depth interviews (distinct participants across the two datasets) conducted with 27 intensive care consultants (n=9), research nurses (n=17) and trial coordinators (n=1) from 27 units across the UK. Primary and secondary analyses of two datasets (one dataset had been analysed previously) were undertaken in the thematic analysis.

findingsThe synthesis yielded an overarching core theme of normalising research, characterised by motivations for promoting research and fostering research-active cultures within resource constraints, with six themes under this to explain the factors influencing critical care research capacity: organisational, human, study, practical resources, clinician and patient/family factors. There was a strong sense of integrating research in routine clinical practice, and recommendations are outlined.

conclusionsThe central and transferable tenet of normalising research advocates the importance of developing a culture where research is inclusive alongside clinical practice in routine patient care and is a requisite for all healthcare individuals from organisational to direct patient contact level.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsPatient SelectionClinical Trials as TopicCritical CareHumansQualitative ResearchUnited Kingdomaccess to researchbarrierscritical care trialsfacilitatorsnormalising researchqualitative synthesis

Identifiers

PMID31871255
PMCPMC6937020
OpenAlexW2995322487

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.