ArticleJournal of medical ethics2026
Feasibility, comprehension and applicability of broad consent in the emergency department: an exploratory mixed-methods study.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Broad consent in the emergency department: a cross sectional study.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe German Medical Informatics Initiative (MII) introduced a standardised Broad Consent (BC) form encompassing medical data, insurance data, contact information and biomaterials for health data research. This study assesses the feasibility of MII-BC in emergency departments (EDs), examining patient understanding and identifying implementation facilitators and barriers. Recommendations for implementation of MII-BC in EDs will be derived.
methodsMixed-method data were collected in EDs of four German university hospitals (UHs) using pseudonymised participant observation with a focus on patient perspective and surveys from patients. Data included MII-BC acceptance rates, patient understanding, motivation to consent and implementation facilitators and barriers. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively; qualitative data underwent content analysis with deductive-inductive category formation.
resultsThe exploratory study involved 12 participant observations from four tertiary UHs, surfacing five key themes: (1) MII-BC patient information in the ED, (2) facilitators and (3) barriers in obtaining MII-BC in the ED, (4) patient perspectives on MII-BC and (5) recommendations for implementing MII-BC in EDs. Survey results (n=225) showed that most patients (89.8%) demonstrated high understanding of MII-BC patient information. Facilitators include empathetic engagement, clear communication and encouragement for questions. Hindering factors include estimating study time frames, ambient noises and study procedure interruptions. Adequate resources, such as trained staff and suitable premises, are crucial.
conclusionImplementing MII-BC in the ED is feasible with appropriate resources, though ED-specific challenges must be addressed. Successful MII-BC implementation in EDs hinges on ensuring access to comprehensible information materials, transparent communication and a calm recruitment environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00030054.
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.