MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171471392 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201208-1537oc

Research Recruitment Practices and Critically Ill Patients. A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study (The Consent Study)

2013· article· en· W2171471392 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karen E. A. Burns, Celia Zubrinich, Wylie Tan, Stavroula Raptis, Wei Xiong, Orla Smith, Ellen McDonald, John C. Marshall, Raphael Saginur, Ron Heslegrave, Gordon D. Rubenfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreOttawa HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineWorkloadObservational studyInformed consentCritically illInclusion (mineral)Cross-sectional studyIntensive care unitIntensive careMEDLINEFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Limited cross-sectional data exist to characterize the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients into research studies. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe recruitment practices, document factors that impact recruitment, and identify factors that may enhance future research feasibility. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of all critically ill adults eligible to participate in research studies at 23 Canadian intensive care units. We characterized eligibility events into one of five consent outcomes, identified reasons why opportunities to recruit were missed or infeasible, and documented decision maker's rationale for providing or declining consent. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients made decisions for themselves in 8.9% of encounters. In 452 eligibility events, consent was not required in 14 (3.1%), missed in 130 (28.8%), infeasible due to operational reasons in 129 (28.5%), obtained in 140 (31.0%), and declined in 39 (8.6%). More than half (57.3%) of all opportunities to recruit patients were missed or infeasible, largely because of research team workload, limited availability, narrow time windows for inclusion, difficulties in contacting families, nonexistent substitute decision makers (SDMs), physician refusals, and protocols prohibiting coenrollment. The rationale for providing consent differed between patients and SDMs. Greater research coordinator experience and site research volume and broader time windows for inclusion were significant predictors of fewer declined consents. CONCLUSIONS: A large gap exists between eligibility and the frequency with which consent encounters occur in intensive care unit research. Recruitment is susceptible to design and procedural inefficiencies that hinder recruitment and to personnel availability, given the need to interact with SDMs. Current enrollment practices may underrepresent potential study populations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.545
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.082 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations113
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207