Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39966946›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025

Broad consent in the emergency department: a cross sectional study.

Antje Fischer-Rosinský, Larissa Eienbröker, Martin Möckel, Frank Hanses, Felix Patricius Hans, Sebastian Wolfrum, Johannes Drepper, Philipp Heinrich, Anna Slagman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Antje Fischer-RosinskýHealth Services Research in Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Larissa EienbrökerHealth Services Research in Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. larissa.eienbroeker@charite.de.
Martin MöckelHealth Services Research in Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank HansesEmergency Department, Department for Infection Control and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Regensburg, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Felix Patricius HansMedical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University Emergency Center, University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Sebastian WolfrumEmergency Department, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Johannes DrepperTMF-Technology, Infrastructure for Networked Medical Research, Methods, Berlin, Germany.
Philipp HeinrichFaculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Unabhängige Treuhandstelle, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Anna SlagmanHealth Services Research in Emergency and Acute Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Medical Informatics Initiative (MII) introduced a broad consent form (MII-BC) encompassing clinical, insurance, and biomaterial data, along with re-contacting options. In the emergency department (ED), outpatient and inpatient patients of all illnesses and severity could be reached early in their treatment course. The BC-ED (Broad Consent in the Emergency Department) project uniquely investigated the implementation of MII-BC in EDs, exploring feasibility, selection bias and patients' perceptions of voluntariness, information recall, motivation, and satisfaction.

methodsThe BC-ED project involving four university hospital EDs in Germany, is part of CODEX+ (Collaborative Data Exchange and Usage), an initiative within the Network University Medicine (NUM). To minimize selection bias, a systematic sampling approach (every 5th/30th patient) was applied, with patient recruitment and consent processes adapted to local conditions and therefore varying among sites. Data collection included patient questionnaires, surveys completed by study nurses, and routine clinical data. Analysis was conducted descriptively using SPSS.

resultsOf 1,138 patients approached, 553 (48.6%) were capable of giving consent. Of 353 patients who could not consent, primary reasons included language barriers (35.4%) and inability to grasp study details (21.5%). Of all eligible patients, 3.3% could not be contacted. Of 535 (47.0%) patients able to consent and contacted, 313 consented to the MII-BC. Resulting in a consent rate of 27.5% corresponding to the baseline population and 58.5% of those contacted. Motivations for consenting were general support for research (85.3%) and the desire to help future patients (78.2%). Patients generally reported a high level of understanding and satisfaction with the consent process, reporting comprehensive understanding of scientific data use (89.8%) and associated risks (82.2%). However, discrepancies were noted between consented options and patient recall.

conclusionsThis study is the first to investigate the implementation of the MII-BC in the challenging ED environment. With a consent rate of 27.5% total baseline population and 58.5% of those contacted, it demonstrates that patients were able and willing to participate in research. Reasons for non-consent were barriers like language and medical conditions. Strategies to address these barriers are crucial for inclusivity. Although patients generally understood the consent process, discrepancies in recall highlight the need for improved comprehension strategies.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register on 25 October 2022 (DRKS0003054).

Indexed as

Broad consentEmergency departmentFeasibilityInformed consentMotivationPatient-reported voluntarinessRecallSatisfaction

Identifiers

PMID39966946
PMCPMC11834566

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.