Consenting to pediatric critical care research: understanding the perspective of parents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Pediatric clinical research is dependent on obtaining consentfrom the parents or legal guardian of eligible patients. Little is known about parents' perspectives and the process by which they make the decision to enroll their child in a pediatric critical care trial. OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of parents/legal guardians who consented or declined consent for their child to be enrolled in a pediatric critical care research study. Factors that influenced parents' decisions and suggestions for improving and modifying the consent process were explored. METHOD: This study used a qualitative descriptive research design. Seven semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with parents who had given or declined consent for their child to participate in a clinical research study while their child was in a pediatric critical care unit in one of two Canadian pediatric teaching hospitals. Parents were interviewed within 48 hours of their child's transfer from the PICU to a hospital ward unit. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a content analysis method. RESULTS: Parental decision-making related to research consent in the context of pediatric critical care is influenced by specific characteristics of the consent encounter (timing, location, and information), parent (emotional state, decision-making style, familiarity with environment, past experience, and personal motivation), child (condition and response to pain/needles) and study (risk, method, burden, and benefit). Parents identified that the timing and ways in which they received information during the consent encounter could be improved. CONCLUSION: Pediatric critical care researchers can improve the parental consent encounter experience by considering how parents perceive the approach to consent for a research trial for their child to balance the need to support parents with the need for participants in pediatric critical care research trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".