Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39136531›Full record

ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics

Ethical Issues in Implementation Science: A Qualitative Interview Study of Participating Clinicians.

Justin T Clapp, Naomi Zucker, Olivia K Hernandez, Ellen J Bass, Meghan B Lane-Fall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Justin T ClappUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Naomi ZuckerUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Olivia K HernandezThe Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Ellen J BassDrexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Meghan B Lane-FallUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care - Understanding ScalabilityR01HL153735 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LANE-FALL, MEGHAN BROOKS · 2020 to 2024
$3.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL153735
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation science presents ethical issues not well addressed by traditional research ethics frameworks. There is little empirical work examining how clinicians whose work is affected by implementation studies view these issues. Accordingly, we interviewed clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study seeking to improve patient handoffs to the intensive care unit (ICU).

methodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with 32 clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study aiming to improve patient handoffs from the operating room to the ICU. We analyzed the interviews using an iterative coding process following a conventional content analysis approach.

resultsClinicians' greatest concern about involvement was possible damage to interpersonal relations with more senior clinicians. They were divided about whether informed consent from clinicians was necessary but were satisfied with the study's approach of sending out mass communications about the study. They did not think opting out of the implementation portion of the study was feasible but saw this inability to opt out as unproblematic because they equated the study with routine quality improvement. Those clinicians who helped launch the study at their sites recounted several different ways of doing so beyond simply facilitating access.

conclusionsThe risks that clinicians identified stemmed more from their general status as employees than their specific work as clinicians. Implementation researchers should be attuned to the ethical ramifications of involving employees of varying ranks. Implementation researchers using hybrid designs should also be sensitive to the possibility that practitioners affected by a study will equate it with quality improvement and overlook its research component. Finally, the interactions that go into facilitating an implementation study are more various than the "gatekeeping" typically discussed by research ethicists. More research is needed on the ethics of the myriad interactions that are involved in making implementation studies happen.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelImplementation ScienceIntensive Care UnitsPatient TransferEthics, ResearchFemaleHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementgatekeepingImplementation scienceinformed consentopt outpatient handoffresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID39136531
PMCPMC11785497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.