ArticleBMJ open2021
Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient-public involvement contributors.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Views on consent approaches used in emergency and critical care research: a rapid, systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic analysis of approaches used in cardiac arrest trials to inform relatives about trial enrolment of non-surviving patients.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2025Pooled it
- Research priorities for intensive care: A stakeholder-informed priority-setting partnership.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing communication with bereaved relatives about emergency and critical care trials (ENHANCE): a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- What did trial participants in REMAP-CAP Japan experience during the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Patient engagement and shared decision-making in trial recruitment intervention studies: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Equity of participants in clinical trials in critical care and perioperative medicine research: a systematic review.BJA open · 2025Review
- Research Ethics Challenges, Controversies and Difficulties in Intensive Care Units-A Systematic Review of Theoretical Concepts.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Review
- Patient and public involvement and engagement in critical care research in low and middle-income countries: challenges and solutions.Critical care science · 2025Article
- Equity in Clinical Care and Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness.Neurocritical care · 2024Review
- Patient Preferences and Priorities for the Design of an Acute Kidney Injury Prevention Trial: Findings from a Consensus Workshop.Kidney360 · 2024Article
- Guidance to inform research recruitment processes for studies involving critically ill patients.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2024Article
- Article
- Learning from stakeholders to inform good practice guidance on consent to research in intensive care units: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical 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.
methodsSemistructured 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.
resultsSeven 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.
conclusionCritical 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.
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.