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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paddock, Katie, Woolfall, Kerry, Frith, Lucy, Watkins, Megan, Gamble, Carrol, Welters, Ingeborg, Young, Bridget
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