ReviewResearch involvement and engagement2025
Consumer and community involvement in paediatric intensive care research across Australia and New Zealand: a protocol for a mixed-methods environmental scan.
Review in Research involvement and engagement, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPaediatric intensive care provides specialist expertise and support for critically ill children, often with complex conditions or in life-threatening circumstances. Hospitalisation of a child in a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) can be extremely stressful for both the child and family which makes research in this area challenging. The involvement of patients and families (consumers) in the design and conduct of research in PICU is essential to ensure research is aligned with their priorities and meets their needs. However, the current level of consumer and community involvement (CCI) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) PICU research is unknown.
methodsThis protocol reports a mixed-methods environmental scan employing two phases. Phase 1, a scoping review, will include published, unpublished, and ongoing PICU research, reporting information about study methodology and conduct, and CCI. Quantitative data will be primarily reported using descriptive statistics, and inductive content analysis will be used for qualitative data. Phase 2, semi-structured interviews, will be conducted with purposive sampling of research teams and consumers to gather insights about their experiences of CCI in PICU research, using content analysis to identify key concepts. DISCUSSION: Environmental scanning is an effective approach to information gathering and has been used in healthcare as an optimal method for studying real-world interventions. Our study will advance understanding of the current state of CCI in PICU research, identifying strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement. With the assessment of the needs of both consumers and the research community, our study will enable the development of strategies for improving CCI and subsequently the quality of PICU research. A multifaceted approach to dissemination of the findings of this environmental scan, informed by consumer advisors, will be used to reach diverse audiences. This may include email distribution, social media, academic journals, conferences or relevant institutional symposiums.
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.