MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Video-augmented vs standard consent in an early ICU cycling feasibility trial: a randomized embedded recruitment trial

2020· preprint· en· W3002398350 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle E. Kho, Mark Duffett, France Clarke, Melissa Shears, Alexander J. Molloy

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of AlbertaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsInformed consentRandomized controlled trialPilot trialCyclingMedicinePsychologyNursingInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> In a trial of early in-bed cycling in critically ill patients, a video demonstrating use of the cycle in addition to verbal description may improve satisfaction with the informed consent process for all persons involved. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> A convenience sample of in-person consent encounters for enrolment in TryCYCLE (NCT01885442), a 33-patient pilot study of in-bed cycling with mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care unit, were recruited. In this study within a trial, using concealed allocation, we randomized consent encounters to a Video or Standard consent approach. Those in the Video group viewed a 2-minute video of a model using in-bed cycling plus the routine verbal description of the study. The Standard group received the routine verbal description only. Patients and/or substitute decision makers (SDMs) were blinded to the study purpose. After each encounter, patients and/or SDMs and the research coordinator submitted written satisfaction and comfort ratings using 7-point scales (higher scores better). We documented consent outcomes and analyzed between group differences with independent group t-tests. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> We randomized 14 encounters (6 Video, 8 Standard). Ten completed questionnaires (5 in each group) demonstrated no difference in patient and/or SDM satisfaction or comfort between Video or Standard (mean [standard deviation] Satisfaction: 6.8[0.45] vs. 7.0[0] vs. p=0.37; Comfort: 7.0[0] vs. 7.0[0], p&gt;0.99). The research coordinator evaluated all randomized encounters, with no differences between Video or Standard (Satisfaction: 7.0[0] vs. 6.9[0.35], p=0.41; Comfort: 6.7[0.52] vs. 6.9[0.35], p=0.39). All 14 consent encounters enrolled in TryCYCLE. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Patient and/or SDM satisfaction and comfort with consent was very high for both the Video and Standard approaches. Further research, including use of videos to portray different study interventions, is needed, including analysis of patient and/or SDM satisfaction, comfort, comprehension, and consent rates. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Registration for host trial:</ns4:bold> ClinicalTrials.gov, <ns4:ext-link xmlns:ns3="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns3:href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01885442">NCT01885442</ns4:ext-link> , registered on June 25, 2013 </ns4:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207