Literature DB >> 18552686

Enrollment of intensive care unit patients into clinical studies: a trinational survey of researchers' experiences, beliefs, and practices.

Deborah J Cook1, David Blythe, Amanda Rischbieth, Paul C Hebert, Nicole Zytaruk, Kusum Menon, Simon Erikson, Robert Fowler, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Maureen O Meade.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As critical care practice increases in scope, size, and complexity, enrollment of critically ill patients into clinical studies is increasing.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences, beliefs, and practices of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group regarding enrollment of critically ill children and adults into clinical studies.
METHODS: Survey items generated by the research team were formatted in four domains: experiences, beliefs, practices, and demographics. Five research coordinators and five physicians pretested the survey, providing feedback on clarity and completeness. Intrarater reliability (16 participants, 2 wks apart) was very good.
RESULTS: The response rate was 284 of 322 (88.2%). Respondents worked in intensive care units with a mean of 20.5 (SD 10) beds, caring for adults (72.2%), pediatric (18.8%), and both groups (9%) of critically ill patients. Clinical research was considered key to the future of improved clinical care. To enhance recruitment efficiency, respondents widely endorsed the effectiveness of increasing participating centers, after-hours, and weekend enrollment (all 3 scores 7 [6-7[sqb], reflecting median [interquartile range] on 1-7 scale). Overall, the effectiveness (6 [4-7]), feasibility (5 [4-6]) and ethics (5 [4-7]) of coenrollment into more than one randomized trial was endorsed. Half of respondents have adopted coenrollment with scientific and psychosocial provisos. Alternative designs, such as factorial and cluster randomized trials, were considered when suitable. Modifications to consent approaches (deferred consent (7 [6-7]), waived consent (7 [6-7]), or consent from two physicians in the absence of a substitute decision maker (6 [5-7])) were considered effective, but beliefs about the feasibility and ethics of some of these approaches varied.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research is highly valued by these intensive care unit communities. Strategies to increase capacity involve enhancing recruitment efficiencies, considering alternative study designs and expanding consent procedures. Thoughtfully implementing these strategies may advance the care of critically ill adults and children.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18552686     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31817c00b0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  18 in total

1.  Using real-time alerts for clinical trials: Identifying potential study subjects.

Authors:  E Chow; M Zuberi; R Seto; S Hota; E N Fish; D Morra
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 2.342

2.  Exploring obstacles to critical care trials in the UK: A qualitative investigation.

Authors:  Natalie Pattison; Nishkantha Arulkumaran; Sally Humphreys; Tim Walsh
Journal:  J Intensive Care Soc       Date:  2016-08-22

Review 3.  Making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care.

Authors:  Katie Harron; Twin Lee; Tracy Ball; Quen Mok; Carrol Gamble; Duncan Macrae; Ruth Gilbert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project in collaboration with the international forum for acute care trialists - Collaborative H1N1 Adjuvant Treatment pilot trial (CHAT): study protocol and design of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Karen E A Burns; Clarence Chant; Orla Smith; Brian Cuthbertson; Robert Fowler; Deborah J Cook; Peter Kruger; Steve Webb; Jamal Alhashemi; Guillermo Dominguez-Cherit; Carlos Zala; Gordon D Rubenfeld; John C Marshall
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 5.  Ethical and scientific considerations for patient enrollment into concurrent clinical trials.

Authors:  Paul S Myles; Elizabeth Williamson; Justin Oakley; Andrew Forbes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-11-29       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 6.  Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness.

Authors:  Nina H Gobat; Micaela Gal; Nick A Francis; Kerenza Hood; Angela Watkins; Jill Turner; Ronald Moore; Steve A R Webb; Christopher C Butler; Alistair Nichol
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 7.  Co-enrolment of Participants into Multiple Cancer Trials: Benefits and Challenges.

Authors:  F H Cafferty; C Coyle; S Rowley; L Berkman; M MacKensie; R E Langley
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 4.126

8.  Developing a survey of barriers and facilitators to recruitment in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Geetinder Kaur; Rosalind L Smyth; Paula Williamson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Standard versus accelerated initiation of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury (STARRT-AKI): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Orla M Smith; Ron Wald; Neill K J Adhikari; Karen Pope; Matthew A Weir; Sean M Bagshaw
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Patient enrollment and logistical problems top the list of difficulties in clinical research: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Stéphane Cullati; Delphine S Courvoisier; Angèle Gayet-Ageron; Guy Haller; Olivier Irion; Thomas Agoritsas; Sandrine Rudaz; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.