ArticlePaediatrics & child health2024
A survey of caregiver preferences regarding research participation in the paediatric emergency department.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Emergency department (ED) visits can be stressful for families and can affect caregiver willingness to consent to participating in research. Our objective was to describe when and how caregivers wish to be informed about clinical research during their child's ED visit. Methods: An electronic survey was performed for families presenting to 10 Canadian paediatric EDs. A convenience sample of 1456 caregivers with children aged 0 to 17 years were enrolled. The survey tool was created (with an expert panel) using published methodological guidelines, including item generation/reduction, pre- and pilot-testing, and clinical sensibility assessment. Research-specific questions included the best time to be approached, the breadth of study opportunities presented, and best ways to encourage families to participate. Results: Caregivers reported that the best times to be approached regarding research were in the waiting room (45.3%, 653/1441), after physician assessment (39.0%, 562/1441), or just prior to discharge (9.9%, 143/1441). 52.2% (351/672) wanted to hear about all available research studies, while 47.8% (321/672) wanted to be informed of studies relevant only to their child's condition. Reported best ways to encourage families to participate in research included: incentives (e.g., gift cards/parking passes [31.2%, 230/737]), providing a clear explanation of study intent (30.7%, 226/737), and appealing to altruism (25.4%, 187/737). Conclusions: There is wide variability in family preferences for timing of research-related conversations, suggesting that families could be approached in the waiting room, and if that is inconvenient or impractical, they could be offered a deferred conversation (i.e., after physician assessment or prior to discharge).
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.