MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519287763 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012931

Exploring the experiences of substitute decision-makers with an exception to consent in a paediatric resuscitation randomised controlled trial: study protocol for a qualitative research study

2016· article· en· W2519287763 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Melissa Parker, Sonya de Laat, Lisa Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationMcMaster Children's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthCanadian Child Health Clinician Scientist ProgramCanadian Blood ServicesAustralian GovernmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsInformed consentQualitative researchMedicineResearch ethicsProtocol (science)Grounded theoryDeclaration of HelsinkiClinical trialBioethicsFamily medicineParental consentMedical educationNursingAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Prospective informed consent is required for most research involving human participants; however, this is impracticable under some circumstances. The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) outlines the requirements for research involving human participants in Canada. The need for an exception to consent (deferred consent) is recognised and endorsed in the TCPS for research in individual medical emergencies; however, little is known about substitute decision-maker (SDM) experiences. A paediatric resuscitation trial (SQUEEZE) (NCT01973907) using an exception to consent process began enrolling at McMaster Children's Hospital in January 2014. This qualitative research study aims to generate new knowledge on SDM experiences with the exception to consent process as implemented in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SDMs of children enrolled into the SQUEEZE pilot trial will be the sampling frame from which ethics study participants will be derived. DESIGN: Qualitative research study involving individual interviews and grounded theory methodology. PARTICIPANTS: SDMs for children enrolled into the SQUEEZE pilot trial. SAMPLE SIZE: Up to 25 SDMs. Qualitative methodology: SDMs will be invited to participate in the qualitative ethics study. Interviews with consenting SDMs will be conducted in person or by telephone, taped and professionally transcribed. Participants will be encouraged to elaborate on their experience of being asked to consent after the fact and how this process occurred. ANALYSIS: Data gathering and analysis will be undertaken simultaneously. The investigators will collaborate in developing the coding scheme, and data will be coded using NVivo. Emerging themes will be identified. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research represents a rare opportunity to interview parents/guardians of critically ill children enrolled into a resuscitation trial without their knowledge or prior consent. Findings will inform implementation of the exception to consent process in the planned definitive SQUEEZE trial and support development of evidence-based ethics guidelines.

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)0.148
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.160
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1480.160
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0080.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.011

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 head0.876
GPT teacher head0.736
Teacher spread0.139 · 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 designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207