Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36434661›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Feasibility, effectiveness and costs of a decision support intervention for consultees and legal representatives of adults lacking capacity to consent (CONSULT): protocol for a randomised Study Within a Trial.

Victoria Shepherd, Fiona Wood, Katie Gillies, Adam Martin, Abby O'Connell, Kerenza Hood

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria ShepherdCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. ShepherdVL1@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7687-0817
Fiona WoodPRIME Centre Wales, Wales, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Adam MartinAcademic Unit of Health Economics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abby O'ConnellExeter Clinical Trials Unit, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Cardiff University · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1HCRW_ NIHR-FS(A)-2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomised trials play a vital role in underpinning evidence-based care. However, trials involving adults with impaired capacity to consent raise a number of ethical and methodological challenges, leading to the frequent exclusion of this group from trials. This includes challenges around involving family members as alternative 'proxy' decision-makers. Family members are often given little information about their role as a consultee or legal representative. Some family members find making a decision about trial participation difficult and may experience an emotional and decisional burden as a result. Families have reported a need for greater support and guidance when making such decisions, leading to the development of a decision aid ('Making decisions about research for others') for family members acting as consultee/legal representative. The decision aid now requires evaluation to determine its effectiveness in supporting families to make more informed decisions.

methodsThis protocol describes a prospective, multi-centre, randomised-controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the decision aid. The SWAT will initially be embedded in approximately five host trials. SWAT participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention (decision aid alongside standard information about the host trial provided to consultees/legal representatives) or control (standard information alone). The primary outcome is the quality of proxy consent decision, assessed by the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD). The SWAT design is informed by previous qualitative research. Initial feasibility will be explored in one host trial, followed by the main SWAT. An embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation will enable the SWAT findings to be contextualised and identify factors likely to affect implementation. DISCUSSION: This SWAT will generate the first evidence for recruitment interventions for trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent and add to knowledge about the use of decision support interventions in trial participation decisions. The SWAT will be embedded in a range of trials, and the heterogenous nature of the host trials, settings and populations involved will enable the intervention to be evaluated in a wide range of contexts. However, a pragmatic and flexible approach to conducting the SWAT is needed.

trial registrationThe SWAT is registered as SWAT #159 with the Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository (registered 09.08.2020). Each host trial will be registered on a clinical trials registry.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentResearch DesignAdultFeasibility StudiesHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicProspective StudiesProxyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical trialDecision-makingInformed consentProxyStudy Within A Trial (SWAT)

Identifiers

PMID36434661
PMCPMC9701035
OpenAlexW4310052603

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.