Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32228534›Full record

ArticleBMC pediatrics2020

Enhancing communication, informed consent and recruitment in a paediatric urgent care surgical trial: a qualitative study.

Frances C Sherratt, Lucy Beasant, Esther M Crawley, Nigel J Hall, Bridget Young

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Frances C SherrattInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Room 223, Second Floor, Block B, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Dover Street, Liverpool, L3 5DA, UK.
Lucy BeasantBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Esther M CrawleyBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nigel J HallUniversity Surgery Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Bridget YoungInstitute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Room 223, Second Floor, Block B, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Dover Street, Liverpool, L3 5DA, UK. byoung@liv.ac.uk.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

Department of Health 14/192/90Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruiting patients to paediatric trials can be challenging, especially in trials that compare markedly different management pathways and are conducted in acute settings. We aimed to enhance informed consent and recruitment in the CONTRACT trial (CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children a randomised controlled Trial; ISRCTN15830435) - a feasibility trial that compared non-operative treatment (antibiotics) versus appendicectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

methodsQualitative study embedded within CONTRACT and conducted across three UK children's hospitals. Data were transcribed audio-recordings of 85 CONTRACT recruitment consultations with 58 families; and semi-structured interviews with 35 health professionals and 28 families (34 parents, 14 children) invited to participate in CONTRACT. Data analysis drew on thematic approaches. Throughout CONTRACT, we used findings from the ongoing qualitative analysis to inform bespoke communication training for health professionals recruiting to CONTRACT. Before and after training we also examined qualitative changes in communication during consultations and quantitative changes in recruitment rates.

resultsBespoke communication training focussed on presenting the trial arms in a balanced way, emphasising clinical equipoise, exploring family treatment preferences and managing families' expectations about the trial's treatment pathways. Analysis of recruitment consultations indicated that health professionals' presentation of treatment arms became increasingly balanced following training, (e.g. avoiding imbalanced terminology) and recruitment rose from 38 to 62%. However, they remained reluctant to explore families' treatment preferences and respond with further information to balance these preferences. Analyses of interviews identified the time constraints of the urgent care setting, concerns about coercion, and reservations about exposing children to conversations about treatment risks as reasons for this reluctance. Interviews with families indicated the importance of clear explanations of trial treatment timings and sensitive communication of treatment allocation for both recruitment and retention.

conclusionsFollowing bespoke training based on the qualitative analyses, health professionals presented CONTRACT to families in clearer and more balanced ways and this was associated with an increase in the recruitment rate. Despite training, health professionals remained reluctant to explore families' treatment preferences. We provide several recommendations to enhance communication, informed consent, recruitment and retention in future trials in urgent care settings.

Indexed as

CommunicationInformed ConsentParentsPatient SelectionAmbulatory CareChildFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic(3–10) qualitativeAppendicectomyAppendicitisCommunicationEmergencyInterviewsPediatricRandomised controlled trialsSurgeryUrgent care

Identifiers

PMID32228534
PMCPMC7106711
OpenAlexW3013009781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.