ArticleBMJ open2021
Protocol for a mixed method acceptability evaluation of a codesigned bundled COmmunication intervention for use in the adult ICU during the COVID-19 PandEmic: the COPE study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consolidated guidance for behavioral intervention pilot and feasibility studies.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Expert Perspectives on Pilot and Feasibility Studies: A Delphi Study and Consolidation of Considerations for Behavioral Interventions.Research square · 2023Article
- Adapting co-design methodology to a virtual environment: co-designing a communication intervention for adult patients in critical care.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- The Aftermath of the COVID-19 Crisis in Saudi Arabia: Respiratory Rehabilitation Recommendations by Physical Therapists.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation via an artificial airway experience sudden voicelessness placing them at risk for adverse outcomes and increasing provider workload. Infection control precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of personal protective equipment (eg, gloves, masks, etc), patient isolation, and visitor restrictions may exacerbate communication difficulty. The objective of this study is to evaluate the acceptability of a codesigned communication intervention for use in the adult intensive care unit when infection control precautions such as those used during COVID-19 are required. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This three-phased, prospective study will take place in a medical surgical ICU in a community teaching hospital in Toronto. Participants will include ICU healthcare providers, adult patients and their family members. Qualitative interviews (target n: 20-25) will explore participant perceptions of the barriers to and facilitators for supporting patient communication in the adult ICU in the context of COVID-19 and infection control precautions (phase 1). Using principles of codesign, a stakeholder advisory council of 8-10 participants will iteratively produce an intervention (phase 2). The codesigned intervention will then be implemented and undergo a mixed method acceptability evaluation in the study setting (phase 3). Acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness will be evaluated using validated measures (target n: 60-65). Follow-up semistructured interviews will be analysed using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). The primary outcomes of this study will be acceptability ratings and descriptions of a codesigned COmmunication intervention for use during and beyond the COVID-19 PandEmic. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been reviewed, and ethics approval was obtained from the Michael Garron Hospital. Results will be made available to healthcare providers in the study setting throughout the study and through publications and conference presentations.
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.