Cargando…
Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors
OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461270/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34551943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048193 |
_version_ | 1784571941345034240 |
---|---|
author | Paddock, Katie Woolfall, Kerry Frith, Lucy Watkins, Megan Gamble, Carrol Welters, Ingeborg Young, Bridget |
author_facet | Paddock, Katie Woolfall, Kerry Frith, Lucy Watkins, Megan Gamble, Carrol Welters, Ingeborg Young, Bridget |
author_sort | Paddock, Katie |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient–public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives. CONCLUSION: Critical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8461270 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84612702021-10-08 Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors Paddock, Katie Woolfall, Kerry Frith, Lucy Watkins, Megan Gamble, Carrol Welters, Ingeborg Young, Bridget BMJ Open Intensive Care OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient–public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives. CONCLUSION: Critical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8461270/ /pubmed/34551943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048193 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Intensive Care Paddock, Katie Woolfall, Kerry Frith, Lucy Watkins, Megan Gamble, Carrol Welters, Ingeborg Young, Bridget Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
title | Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
title_full | Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
title_fullStr | Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
title_full_unstemmed | Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
title_short | Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
title_sort | strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient–public involvement contributors |
topic | Intensive Care |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461270/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34551943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048193 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT paddockkatie strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors AT woolfallkerry strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors AT frithlucy strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors AT watkinsmegan strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors AT gamblecarrol strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors AT weltersingeborg strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors AT youngbridget strategiestoenhancerecruitmentandconsenttointensivecarestudiesaqualitativestudywithresearchersandpatientpublicinvolvementcontributors |