Trial reportJournal of medical ethics2018
Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02588664 (Early Supported Discharge for Improving Functional Outcomes After Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 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.
Early Supported Discharge for Improving Functional Outcomes After Stroke
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of a Transitional Care Model for Stroke: Perspectives From Frontline Clinicians, Administrators, and COMPASS-TC Implementation Staff.The Gerontologist · 2020Trial
- Implementation of a billable transitional care model for stroke patients: the COMPASS study.BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2024Article
- A pragmatic randomized clinical trial of multilevel interventions to improve adherence to lung cancer screening (The Larch Study): Study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- An Alternative to the Light Touch Digital Health Remote Study: The Stress and Recovery in Frontline COVID-19 Health Care Workers Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- How engagement of a diverse set of stakeholders shaped the design, implementation, and dissemination of a multicenter pragmatic trial of stroke transitional care: The COMPASS study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Using REDCap to track stakeholder engagement: A time-saving tool for PCORI-funded studies.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Patient Factors Associated With Attendance at a Comprehensive Postacute Stroke Visit: Insight From the Vanguard Site.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2020Article
- Ethical issues in the design and conduct of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials in low-resource settings.Trials · 2019Article
- COMPASS-CP: An Electronic Application to Capture Patient-Reported Outcomes to Develop Actionable Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack Care Plans.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cluster randomised clinical trials present unique challenges in meeting ethical obligations to those who are treated at a randomised site. Obtaining informed consent for research within the context of clinical care is one such challenge. In order to solve this problem it is important that an informed consent process be effective and efficient, and that it does not impede the research or the healthcare. The innovative approach to informed consent employed in the COMPASS study demonstrates the feasibility of upholding ethical standards without imposing undue burden on clinical workflows, staff members or patients who may participate in the research by virtue of their presence in a cluster randomised facility. The COMPASS study included 40 randomised sites and compared the effectiveness of a postacute stroke intervention with standard care. Each site provided either the comprehensive postacute stroke intervention or standard care according to the randomisation assignment. Working together, the study team, institutional review board and members of the community designed an ethically appropriate and operationally reasonable consent process which was carried out successfully at all randomised sites. This achievement is noteworthy because it demonstrates how to effectively conduct appropriate informed consent in cluster randomised trials, and because it provides a model that can easily be adapted for other pragmatic studies. With this innovative approach to informed consent, patients have access to the information they need about research occurring where they are seeking care, and medical researchers can conduct their studies without ethical concerns or unreasonable logistical impediments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02588664, recruiting. This article covers the development of consent process that is currentlty being employed in the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.