Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34551943›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient-public involvement contributors.

Katie Paddock, Kerry Woolfall, Lucy Frith, Megan Watkins, Carrol Gamble, Ingeborg Welters, Bridget Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Research priorities for intensive care: A stakeholder-informed priority-setting partnership.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Katie PaddockFaculty of Health and Education, School of Childhood, Youth and Education Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK k.paddock@mmu.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1264-5845
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Population Health, Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucy FrithFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Law and Philosophy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8506-0699
Megan WatkinsInstitute of Population Health, Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleInstitute of Population Health, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ingeborg WeltersInstitute of Life Course and Medical Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3408-8798
Bridget YoungInstitute of Population Health, Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient ParticipationResearch PersonnelCritical CareHumansInformed ConsentQualitative Researchadult intensive & critical careintensive & critical carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID34551943
PMCPMC8461270

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.