ArticleTransfusion2026
Understanding public perspectives of prehospital trauma research: A qualitative community engagement study on consent and blood transfusion.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding public perspectives of prehospital trauma research: A qualitative community engagement study on consent and blood transfusion.Transfusion · 2026Article
- Alternative models of consent in out-of-hospital transfusion trials: a CAN-PATT position statement supporting exception from prospective consent with opt-out notification.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnintentional injuries are a major cause of death worldwide. Modern trauma systems have reduced morbidity and mortality through rapid prehospital care, yet trauma research faces challenges obtaining informed consent during emergencies. Because patients are often incapacitated and substitute decision makers are unavailable, studies commonly rely on deferred or waived consent. Despite their use, little is known about public perspectives on these models or on prehospital interventions such as paramedic-administered blood transfusion.
objectiveTo explore Canadian public perspectives on trauma research, alternative consent models, and prehospital blood transfusion.
methodsA multi-methods community engagement study, including a national survey and 96 in situ interviews in four rural Ontario communities. Survey and interview questions assessed trust in healthcare, views on research consent, and acceptance of prehospital blood transfusion. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively; qualitative data underwent thematic analysis.
resultsSurvey respondents reported strong trust in the healthcare system (75%) and support for clinical trials (80%). Acceptance of alternative consent was mixed, with only 40% finding it acceptable. Most agreed that data collected before withdrawal of consent should remain usable. Support for paramedic-administered blood transfusion was high (70%), grounded in urgency and trust in paramedic expertise, though concerns included safety and autonomy. Interviews reinforced these themes, emphasizing conditional acceptance of deferred consent, preference for timely communication, and strong trust in paramedics during life-threatening emergencies.
conclusionCanadians support prehospital blood transfusion and recognize the need for trauma research, but acceptance of alternative consent models depends on transparency, perceived necessity, and respect for autonomy.
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.