Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38912720›Full record

SynthesisCritical care explorations2024

Recruitment and Retention Strategies for Randomized Clinical Trials Involving Family Members of ICU Patients.

Aaron Samuels, Valeria Sygal, Karen E A Burns, Michael Goldfarb

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care explorations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
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

4 authors.

Aaron SamuelsMcGill Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Valeria SygalMcGill Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Karen E A BurnsInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael GoldfarbDivision of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9790-1232

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo review recruitment and retention strategies of randomized family-centered interventional studies in adult ICUs. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library database from inception to February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials with family-centered interventions in the ICU setting that reported at least one family-centered outcome that were included in our previously published systematic review. DATA EXTRACTION: For recruitment: Number of family members approached and enrolled, type of approach, location, time of day approached, whether medical team approached first, compensation offered, and type of consent. For retention: Number of family members enrolled and completed initial follow-up visit, mode of follow-up, location of follow-up visit, data collection method, timing of follow-up visits, number of follow-up visits, and compensation offered. Recruitment (participants approached/enrolled) and retention (participants enrolled/completed initial follow-up) percentage were calculated. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 51 studies in the analysis. The mean recruitment percentage was 49.3% ± 24.3%. There were no differences in recruitment percentage by study country, ICU type, recruitment approach, or whether the medical team approached the family member first (all p > 0.05). The mean retention percentage for the initial follow-up visit was 81.6% ± 18.0%. There were no differences in retention percentage by mode of participant contact, data collection type, or follow-up location (all p > 0.05). Minimal data were available to determine the impact of time of day approached and compensation on recruitment and retention outcomes.

conclusionsAbout half of family members of ICU patients approached participated in trials and more than eight in ten completed the initial follow-up visit. We did not identify specific factors that impacted family recruitment or retention. There is a strong need for further studies to characterize optimal strategies to ensure family participation in clinical trials.

Indexed as

FamilyIntensive Care UnitsPatient SelectionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID38912720
PMCPMC11199003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.