MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7117460743 · doi:10.29173/cjen533

Emergency department patients’ willingness to participate in low-risk health research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2025· article· W7117460743 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephanie Crump, Emma Gaylord, Sara Gjyli, Alicia Kassee, Erin L. O’Connor

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConfidentialityPublic healthEmergency departmentLikert scaleResearch ethicsInformed consentResearch designInclusion (mineral)Survey research

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Conducting health research during a health emergency, such as a pandemic, is important to manage public health responses and recovery (Lurie et al., 2013; CIHR, 2024). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a survey by Gobat et al. (2019) showed strong public support for health research during a hypothetical pandemic and discussed patient willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant health research. Conducting research in the emergency department (ED) is challenging due to various barriers, including time constraints for patients (Irani et al., 2015) and patient concerns about trust, risk (Limkakeng, 2014), and confidentiality (Irani et al., 2015) in regard to research participation. Study Aims: A cross-sectional study design and convenience, criterion sampling was used. Adult patients (≥18 years) registered in two urban tertiary EDs at University Health Network (UHN) who met the study inclusion criteria were invited to complete a structured, anonymous, electronic survey. Surveys were collected from August to December 2020. Research Ethics Board approval was obtained by UHN.The survey included a) demographic questions; b) binary questions (yes/no) on whether the patient would consent to donate biospecimens (blood specimens; throat swab; NP swab; and urine sample) for research; and c) 5-point Likert scale questions on patient motivation(s) to donate biospecimens based on four key domains (altruism; trust; personal benefit; social). These domains were formulated based on the Theory of Consumption Values (Sheth et al., 1991) and literature review. Biospecimens were not collected as part of this study. Results: 225 participant surveys were collected. There was a near equal number of male (51%) to female (48%) participants. Most adult age groups were well-represented: 19% were 18 to 29 years old, 30% were 30-49 years old, 35% were 40-59 years, and 25% were 60-79 years old. The sample had higher levels of education as 13% were high school graduates, 27% completed undergraduate education, and 30% completed graduate or post-graduate education. Those who reported their gender as other (1%), were 80 years of age or older (2%), and had no schooling (1%) or a kindergarten to grade 12 education (7%) were underrepresented.The majority of study participants described themselves as generally healthy (60%). Of those who reported health concern(s) (40%), cancer was most reported (22%), followed by cardiac disease (17%), liver or kidney disease (13%), neurological issues (10%), and respiratory disease (8%). Most (62%) survey participants reported no prior participation in health research. WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE BIOSPECIMENS FOR RESEARCHMost (85%) ED patients were willing to provide at least one biospecimen for research purposes and the majority (55%) agreed to provide all four samples. Of those agreeing to donate biospecimens, the majority were willing to provide a urine sample (78%), throat swab (77%), blood sample (75%), or NP swab (65%). Those who previously participated in health research were more likely to agree to donate a urine sample (p = .002), NP swab (p = .005), small blood sample (p = .04), and throat swab (p = .04).Participants largely (71%) reported that their decision to donate biospecimens for research would not be influenced by the presence of a global pandemic. The remaining 29% reported that their decision to take part would be different if there was not a present pandemic. 60% reported that the decision to take part would be different if more risk involved (e.g., taking a medication, having an x-ray, or skin biopsy) while 40% reported their decision would not be different.MOTIVATION TO DONATE BIOSPECIMENS FOR RESEARCH Two domains, altruism and trust, were shown to be internally consistent and reliable via Cronbach's alpha (<0.7). Sum scores were created and then tested against demographic variables. Demographic characteristics of sex, age, education, and health status (generally healthy; health concern(s)) were not statistically significant. Those who reported previous participation in health research had a higher total altruism score (p = .004) and trust score (p = .005) than those who had not previously participated in health research. Implications and Future Directions: This study’s results support engaging ED patients in health research recruitment during a pandemic. The results show that the ED may be a suitable location to seek adult participant consent for the collection of low-risk biospecimens for research purposes during a pandemic.Since the majority (60%) of participants reported a willingness to accept more risk (such as taking a medication, having an x-ray, or skin biopsy), further research is required to explore ED patient participation in research involving more risk during a pandemic.As results show participants have a high willingness to partake in low-risk health research, further research is needed to explore ED patient participant recruitment facilitators and barriers within a pandemic context. Demographic variables not collected in this study, such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status, could also be further explored in relation to ED patient participation in low-risk health research during a pandemic. Conclusion: This study found that most adult ED patients were willing to donate low-risk biospecimens during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also found that altruism and trust were key domains that influenced ED patients' willingness to donate biospecimens for low-risk health research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,043

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,034
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,135
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Emergency NursingMême sujetVaccine Coverage and HesitancyTravaux en français237 207