ArticleBritish paramedic journal2022
Patient and public involvement and engagement with cardiac arrest survivors.
Article in British paramedic journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) with cardiac arrest survivors is an essential component of research to strengthen development, design, delivery and dissemination to ensure research priorities are in the public interest and patient friendly. Cardiac arrest survivors and their relatives were engaged in PPIE to help develop the methods of a research study that aims to reduce individual and care process variation during paramedic-led resuscitation. Methods: This research methodology paper represents the views of seven PPIE representatives and the authors. PPIE representatives included five cardiac arrest survivors and two relatives. Content for the paper was generated by discussion using audio or video call. Notes were taken by the author which included direct quotations generated by the PPIE process. Results: The PPIE representatives considered research surrounding the decisions made by paramedics to be important. From their first-hand experiences, survivors and their relatives felt that a future research study should focus on patient survival. The decision-making of paramedics was identified as most important to explore. Quality of life before the cardiac arrest was considered important as this may help to inform best-interest decisions. The neurologic recovery of patients was important; however, rehabilitation may be extensive and therefore unachievable within the study timeframe. Relatives highlighted that while incorporating their views during resuscitation was important, gaining consent for research participation was not appropriate. Conclusion: PPIE added value and helped to develop a future study to reduce variation in the resuscitation decisions made by paramedics. The group identified what is important to survivors and their relatives and the factors they would like paramedics to consider when making a resuscitation decision. By identifying these factors, the PPIE process has helped to drive the research methods where both quantitative and qualitative designs would be appropriate. Issues in gaining research consent during resuscitation were highlighted.
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.