Cargando…

Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care

AIMS: Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harron, Katie, Lee, Twin, Ball, Tracy, Mok, Quen, Gamble, Carrol, Macrae, Duncan, Gilbert, Ruth
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22870249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041791
_version_ 1782239875575054336
author Harron, Katie
Lee, Twin
Ball, Tracy
Mok, Quen
Gamble, Carrol
Macrae, Duncan
Gilbert, Ruth
author_facet Harron, Katie
Lee, Twin
Ball, Tracy
Mok, Quen
Gamble, Carrol
Macrae, Duncan
Gilbert, Ruth
author_sort Harron, Katie
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent. RESULTS: Five PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child. CONCLUSIONS: Co-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3411697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34116972012-08-06 Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care Harron, Katie Lee, Twin Ball, Tracy Mok, Quen Gamble, Carrol Macrae, Duncan Gilbert, Ruth PLoS One Research Article AIMS: Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent. RESULTS: Five PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child. CONCLUSIONS: Co-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients. Public Library of Science 2012-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3411697/ /pubmed/22870249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041791 Text en © 2012 Harron et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Harron, Katie
Lee, Twin
Ball, Tracy
Mok, Quen
Gamble, Carrol
Macrae, Duncan
Gilbert, Ruth
Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care
title Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care
title_full Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care
title_fullStr Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care
title_full_unstemmed Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care
title_short Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care
title_sort making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22870249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041791
work_keys_str_mv AT harronkatie makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT leetwin makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT balltracy makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT mokquen makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT gamblecarrol makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT macraeduncan makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT gilbertruth makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare
AT makingcoenrolmentfeasibleforrandomisedcontrolledtrialsinpaediatricintensivecare