Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36452021›Full record

ArticleBritish paramedic journal2022

Patient and public involvement and engagement with cardiac arrest survivors.

Alison Coppola, Caroline Halliday, Mark Jones, Richard Houghton, Mark Johnson, Nigel Sillis, Michelle Johnson, Debra Sillis, Ruth Endacott

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Alison CoppolaSouth Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0135-3783.
Caroline HallidayPPIE Working Group.
Mark JonesPPIE Working Group.
Richard HoughtonPPIE Working Group.
Mark JohnsonPPIE Working Group.
Nigel SillisPPIE Working Group.
Michelle JohnsonPPIE Working Group.
Debra SillisPPIE Working Group.
Ruth EndacottUniversity of Plymouth; Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust / University of Plymouth Clinical School; Monash University.
Media Working Group · USRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBSouth Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

mixed methodsout-of-hospital cardiac arrestpatient and public involvement and engagementresearch methodologysurvivors

Identifiers

PMID36452021
PMCPMC9662149
OpenAlexW4281786713

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.