Ethical challenges involved in obtaining consent for research from patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit

Ethics of non-therapeutic research on imminently dying patients in the intensive care unit

Non-therapeutic research with imminently dying patients in intensive care presents complex ethical issues. The vulnerabilities of the imminently dying, together with societal disquiet around death and dying, contribute to an intuition that such research is beyond the legitimate scope of scientific inquiry. Yet excluding imminently dying patients from research hinders the advancement of medical science to the detriment of future patients. Building on existing ethical guidelines for research, we propose a framework for the ethical design and conduct of research involving the imminently dying. To enable rapid translation to practice, we frame the approach in the form of eight ethical questions that researchers and research ethics committees ought to answer prior to conducting any research with this patient population. (1) Does the study hypothesis require the inclusion of imminently dying patients? (2) Are non-therapeutic risks and burdens minimised consistent with sound scientific design? (3) Are the risks of these procedures no more than minimal risk? (4) Are these non-therapeutic risks justified insofar as they are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits of the study? (5) Will valid informed consent be obtained from an authorised surrogate decision maker? (6) How will incidental findings be handled? (7) What additional steps are in place to protect families and significant others of research participants? (8) What additional steps are in place to protect clinical staff and researchers? Several ethical challenges hinder research with imminently dying patients. Nonetheless, provided adequate protections are in place, non-therapeutic research with imminently dying patients is ethically justifiable. Applying our framework to an ongoing study, we demonstrate how our question-driven approach is well suited to guiding investigators and research ethics committees.

Co-designing and pilot testing an infographic to support patients/families through the REMAP-CAP consent process: a mixed-methods study protocol

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is critical to the ethical conduct of clinical research and requires understanding of a trial including its purpose, process, potential risks and benefits, and alternatives to participation. This can be challenging for complex trials, such as platform trials, and in high-stress environments, such as the intensive care unit (ICU). REMAP-CAP (randomized, embedded, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial for community-acquired pneumonia) is a platform trial which studies treatments for ICU patients with community-acquired pneumonia, including COVID-19. Patient/family partners (PFP) identified challenges during the REMAP-CAP consent process.

METHODS

This is a patient-centred co-design study to refine and test an infographic to supplement current REMAP-CAP consent documents. Infographic prototypes were developed by patients, substitute decision-makers (SDMs), and researchers with lived experience in the ICU or with ICU research. We will apply a two-phase exploratory sequential, mixed-methods research design. In phase 1, we will conduct focus groups with ICU patients, SDMs, and research coordinators (RCs). We will use inductive content analysis to inform infographic refinement, to be pilot tested in phase 2. Phase 2 is a prospective study within a trial (SWAT) at ≤ 5 REMAP-CAP sites. We will collect self-reported data from patients/SDMs and RCs. The primary outcome is feasibility (eligible consent encounters, receipt of infographic, consent to follow-up, completion of follow-up surveys). Data will be integrated to understand if/how quantitative results build upon the qualitatively informed infographic.

DISCUSSION

Phase 1 results will be used to co-design an infographic, directly informed by the perspectives of patients, SDMs, and RCs involved in ICU research consent discussions. Results from phase 2 will determine the feasibility of infographic implementation in REMAP-CAP consent encounters. These feasibility data will inform a larger SWAT to evaluate our consent infographic. If successful, use of a co-designed infographic to support REMAP-CAP consent documents may improve the experience of consent for patients, SDMs, and RCs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT Repository (SWAT no. 176).

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Patient Information and Consent for Care in the Intensive Care Unit

In this paper, we review the ethical issues involved in providing information to, and obtaining consent (for treatment and/or research) from patients in the intensive care unit. We first review the ethical obligations of the physician in treating patients, who are by definition, vulnerable, and often unable to assert their autonomy during situations of critical illness. Providing clear and transparent information to the patient about treatment options or research opportunities is an ethical and, in some cases, legal obligation for the physicians, but may be rendered difficult, not to say impossible in the intensive care unit by the patient's health state. In this context, we review the specificities of intensive care with respect to information and consent. We discuss who the right contact person is in the ICU setting, with possible choices including a surrogate decision maker, or a member of the family, in the absence of an officially designated surrogate. We further review the specific considerations relating to the family of critically ill patients, and the amount and type of information that may be given to them without breaching the tenets of medical confidentiality. Finally, we discuss the specific cases of consent to research, and patients who refuse care.

Family experiences with non-therapeutic research on dying patients in the intensive care unit

Experiences of substitute decision-makers with requests for consent to non-therapeutic research participation during the dying process, including to what degree such requests are perceived as burdensome, have not been well described. In this study, we explored the lived experiences of family members who consented to non-therapeutic research participation on behalf of an imminently dying patient.We interviewed 33 family members involved in surrogate research consent decisions for dying patients in intensive care. Non-therapeutic research involved continuous physiological monitoring of dying patients prior to and for 30 min following cessation of circulation. At some study centres participation involved installation of bedside computers. At one centre electroencephalogram monitoring was used with a subset of participants. Aside from additional monitoring, the research protocol did not involve deviations from usual end-of-life care.Thematic analysis of interviews suggests most family members did not perceive this minimal-risk, non-therapeutic study to affect their time with patients during the dying process, nor did they perceive research consent as an additional burden. In our analysis, consenting for participation in perimortem research offered families of the dying an opportunity to affirm the intrinsic value of patients' lives and contributions. This opportunity may be particularly important for families of patients who consented to organ donation but did not proceed to organ retrieval.Our work supports concerns that traditional models of informed consent fail to account for possible benefits and harms of perimortem research to surviving families. Further research into consent models which integrate patient and family perspectives is needed.

Rationale and design of a randomized controlled clinical trial; Titration of Oxygen Levels (TOOL) during mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Both hyperoxemia and hypoxemia are deleterious in critically ill patients. Targeted oxygenation is recommended to prevent both of these extremes, however this has not translated to the bedside. Hyperoxemia likely persists more than hypoxemia due to absence of immediate discernible adverse effects, cognitive biases and delay in prioritization of titration.

METHODS

We present the methodology for the Titration Of Oxygen Levels (TOOL) trial, an open label, randomized controlled trial of an algorithm-based FiO2 titration with electronic medical record-based automated alerts. We hypothesize that the study intervention will achieve targeted oxygenation by curbing episodes of hyperoxemia while preventing hypoxemia. In the intervention arm, electronic alerts will be used to titrate FiO2 if SpO2 is ≥94% with FiO2 levels ≥0.4 over 45 min. FiO2 will be titrated per standard practice in the control arm. This study is being carried out with deferred consent. The sample size to determine efficacy is 316 subjects, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention vs. control arm. The primary outcome is proportion of time during mechanical ventilation spent with FiO2 ≥ 0.4 and SpO2 ≥ 94%. We will also assess proportion of time during mechanical ventilation spent with SpO2 < 88%, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, hospital mortality, and adherence to electronic alerts as secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This study is designed to evaluate the efficacy of a high fidelity, bioinformatics-based, electronic medical record derived electronic alert system to improve targeted oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients by reducing excessive FiO2 exposure.

Challenges in the conduct of randomised controlled trials in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a major challenge in cardiovascular care. Mortality remains high with 40%-50% after thirty days. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) play a key role to generate evidence on optimal care in this field. However, the number of completed or ongoing RCTs is still relatively low compared to the gaps in evidence. Challenges in the conduct of these trials are in particular the selection of patients and ethical issues in the informed consent process. When determining eligibility criteria, special attention should be paid to the severity of CS, to the inclusion of patients with cardiac arrest and to potential age limits. Median age of AMI-CS patients is increasing. Age limits are therefore controversial as it is important to include elderly patients in RCTs in order to make the results generalisable and to address the special needs of this group. As patients with AMI-CS are in most cases unable to provide informed consent themselves, a step-wise approach with acute consent by a legal representative or independent physicians and later informed consent by the patient if possible might be established depending on regularities of the respective ethical review board and country legislation. Multicenter studies should be sought to generate adequate power.

What does coercion in intensive care mean for patients and their relatives? A thematic qualitative study

Background

The need for an ethical debate about the use of coercion in intensive care units (ICU) may not be as obvious as in other areas of medicine, such as psychiatry. Coercive measures are often necessary to treat critically ill patients in the ICU. It is nevertheless important to keep these measures to a minimum in order to respect the dignity of patients and the cohesion of the clinical team. A deeper understanding of what patients and their relatives perceive during their ICU stay will shed different light on intensive care management. Patients' experiences of loss of control, dependency and abandonment may lead to a new approach towards a broader approach to the concept of coercion in intensive care. The aim of our research is to explore the experiences of patients and relatives in the ICU and to determine when it might be possible to reduce feelings and memories of coercion.

Methods

We conducted and analysed 29 semi-structured interviews with patients and relatives who had been in the ICU a few months previously. Following a coding and categorisation process in MAXQDA™, a rigorous qualitative methodology was used to identify themes relevant to our research.

Results

Five main themes emerged: memory issues; interviewees’ experiences of restricting measures and coercive treatment; patients’ negative perception of situational and relational dependency with the risk of informal coercion; patients’ perceptions of good care in a context of perceived dependency; progression from perception of coercion and dependency to respect for the person. All patients were grateful to have survived. However, coercion in the form of restraint, restriction of movement, and coercive treatment in the ICU was also acknowledged by patients and relatives. These included elements of informal coercion beyond restraints, such as a perceived negative sense of dependence, surrender, and asymmetrical interaction between the patient and health providers.

Conclusions

To capture the full range of patients' experiences of coercion, it is necessary to expand the concept of coercion to include less obvious forms of informal coercion that may occur in dependency situations. This will help identify solutions to avoid or reduce negative recollections that may persist long after discharge and negatively affect the patients' quality of life.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00748-1.

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

Awareness and Perception of Healthcare Providers about Proxy Consent in Critical Care Research

OBJECTIVE

Proxy consent respects patients' autonomy when they are incapable of providing consent for research participation. Healthcare providers need to understand the ethical regulations and practices relevant to the proxy consent process. Thus, this study aimed to assess the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare providers about research proxy consent in the ICU setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey-based design was used in the study. Study participants were resident and specialist physicians, registered nurses, and registered pharmacists from ICU units in Jordan. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire developed to assess their knowledge and attitudes towards informed proxy consent for research studies conducted at the ICU.

RESULTS

In this study, 145 healthcare providers completed the study questionnaire. The healthcare providers agreed that the purpose of the proxy consent is to inform the participants about the potential benefits (66.9%) and risks (66.9%) related to the research to study and respect patient's autonomy (44%), to discuss alternative options (62.1%), and to protect the researchers from any litigation (84.1%). Regarding the assessment of proxy consent, 65.5% of respondents believed that relatives are considered as an authorized legal representative for an informed consent decision on behalf of their ICU patients (65.5%) as they are knowledgeable about patients' values and preferences and have the desire to provide the necessary help. Respondents also agreed that the informed consent process should explain research protocols and procedures (76.6%), therapeutic alternatives (84.1%), potential benefits (41.4%), and potential risks (44.1%) and that participation in the research is voluntary (66.9%). No significant differences in the responses were found among different groups of healthcare providers.

CONCLUSION

The majority of healthcare providers had inadequate awareness about the ethical aspects regarding the informed proxy consent process. Providing training regarding the informed consent process can improve the quality of the proxy consent process in clinical research studies in the ICU setting.

Recall of clinical trial participation and attrition rates in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE

To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS).

MATERIALS/METHODS

In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall.

RESULTS

Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.

Ethical challenges of nurses related COVID-19 pandemic in inpatient wards: An integrative review

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic is a social problem. Nurses face ethical challenges in providing care activities related to COVID-19.

Aim

Therefore, this study aimed to explore the ethical challenges of nurses in COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

This is an integrative review study conducted from 2007 to 2020. Databases of PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science were searched. The results of the eligible studies (12 cases) were analyzed.

Results

A total of 228 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria, and 12 articles were selected for analysis. The study units showed that the ethical challenges of nurses in caring for patients with COVID-19 consisted of three areas, including nursing; patient and family; and treatment equipment and facilities.

Conclusion

Providing care for patients with COVID-19 pandemic has increased nurses' ethical challenges. Therefore, nurses need to pay more attention to not face psychological problems and premature burnout.

The Attitudes of Relatives of ICU Patients toward Informed Consent for Clinical Research

Background

Informed consent is a key ethical requirement for biomedical research that is implemented to ensure autonomy and voluntary participation. However, patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) may be unconscious or severely ill and thus lack the capacity for decisions about research participation. Thus, relatives or guardians are usually asked to provide informed consent prior to the inclusion of ICU patients in research.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the attitudes and preferences of relatives of ICU patients toward informed consent in biomedical research in Jordan. Subjects and Methods. A sample of 184 relatives with a critically ill next of kin in the ICU was anonymously surveyed regarding their attitudes and preferences toward giving informed consent for biomedical research on behalf of their patients.

Results

The study showed that the majority of relatives had a positive attitude toward the informed consent process on behalf of their patients in the ICU (72.3%). The perception that participation in research would be directly beneficial to their patient was the most significant reason to provide informed consent among relatives. The degree of relatedness to the patient was significantly associated with the decision to provide informed consent on behalf of the patients in the ICU. Additionally, more than 70% of the relatives strongly agreed to take part in clinical research if they were to be unconscious patients in the ICU. Moreover, the majority of the respondents agreed that their first-degree relatives would give consent on their behalf.

Conclusion

Relatives with a critically ill next of kin in the ICU had positive attitudes toward providing informed consent on behalf of their patients. This was motivated by the direct benefit from the research to their patient.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

Family perceptions of clinical research and the informed consent process in the ICU

PURPOSE

We investigated experiences of families who provide consent for research on behalf of a loved-one hospitalized in intensive care (ICU).

METHODS

Multicentre, qualitative, descriptive study using semi-directive interviews in 3 ICUs. Eligible relatives were aged >18 years, and had provided informed consent for a clinical trial on behalf of a patient hospitalized in ICU. Interviews were conducted from 06/2018 to 06/2019 by a qualified sociologist, recorded and transcribed.

RESULTS

Fifteen relatives were interviewed; average age 50.3 ± 15 years. All emphasized their interest in clinical research, seeing it as a duty. Involving their loved-one in research allowed them to find meaning in the events. Participants underlined that trust in caregivers and communication are determinant. The strict regulation of research was perceived as a guarantee of safety. Participants felt they lacked the intellectual capacity and knowledge to question explanations. The greatest fear was not that they might incur a risk for the patient, but rather, that they might deprive the patient of a chance at a cure.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance of research opportunities by relatives on behalf of decisionally-incapacitated patients is underpinned by trust in the physicians and the legislative framework. Communication and the quality of information provided by the caregivers are key.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Behavioral Nudges to Improve Enrollment in Critical Care Trials

Rationale: Low and slow patient enrollment remains a barrier to critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Behavioral economic insights suggest that nudges may address some enrollment challenges.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a novel preconsent survey consisting of nudges on critical care RCT enrollment.Methods: We conducted an RCT in 10 intensive care units (ICUs) among surrogate decision-makers (SDMs). The novel multicomponent behavioral nudge survey was administered immediately before soliciting SDMs' informed consent for their patients' participation in a sham trial of two mechanical ventilation weaning approaches in acute respiratory failure. The primary outcome was the enrollment rate for the sham trial. Secondary outcomes included undue and unjust inducements. We also explored SDM and patient predictors of enrollment using multivariate regression.Results: Among 182 SDMs, 93 were randomized to receive the intervention survey and 89 to receive standard informed consent. There was no statistically significant difference in enrollment rates between the intervention (29%) and standard consent (34%) groups (percentage difference, 5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9% to 18%; P = 0.50). There was no evidence of undue or unjust inducement. White SDMs were more likely to enroll the patient compared with non-white SDMs (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 12.2; P = 0.03). SDMs who perceived a higher risk of participation were less likely to enroll the patient (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.71; P < 0.001).Conclusions: A preconsent behavioral nudge survey among SDMs of patients with acute respiratory failure in the ICU did not increase enrollment rates for a sham RCT compared with standard informed consent procedures.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03284359).

Barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies

Background

Clinical research in severely ill or injured patients is required to improve healthcare but may be challenging to perform in practice. The aim of this study was to analyse barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies.

Methods

Data from critically ill patients considered for inclusion in an observational study of venous thromboembolism in Norway were analysed. This included quantitative and qualitative information from the screening log, consent forms and research notes.

Results

Among 279 eligible critically ill patients, 204 (73%) were omitted from the study due to challenges and barriers in the inclusion process. Reasons for omission were categorised as practical in 133 (65%), medical in 31 (15%), and legal or ethical in 40 (20%) of the patients. Among 70 included patients, 29 (41%) consents were from patients and 41 (59%) from their next of kin. Several challenges were described herein; these included whether patients were competent to give consent, and which next of kin that should represent the patient. Furthermore, some included patients were unable to recall what they have consented, and some appeared unable to separate research from treatment.

Conclusions

Barriers and challenges in the inclusion process led to the omission of near three out of four eligible patients. This analysis provided information about where the problem resides and may be solved. The majority of challenges among included patients were related to issues of autonomy and validity of consent.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405766).

Participants' written informed consent in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials with medicines

Introduction: An important gap within modern medicine is the lack of enough comparative effectiveness research of marketed medicines. Low-risk pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) are those conducted resembling usual clinical practice that poses no or minimal incremental risk compared with normal clinical practice.Areas covered: This review addresses one important hurdle in the conduct of low-risk pRCTs: the need to seek participants' written informed consent.Expert opinion: The CIOMS ethical guidelines consider that any research that (a) would not be feasible or practicable to carry out without the waiver or modification, (b) has important social value, and (c) poses no more than minimal risks to participants, and that is approved by the relevant research ethics committee, could be conducted without participants' consent. It is clear that these provisions are applicable to some low-risk RCTs. Recently a research on the EU-CTR registry showed that only 2% of all ongoing phase 4 RCTs could have fulfilled the CIOMS provisions following the investigators' assessment. The EU clinical trial regulation - and that of other jurisdictions - should be debated on the suitableness of the conduct with an alteration or waiver of participants' consent of those low-risk pRCTs that fulfill the three CIOMS provisions.

Acceptability of a German multicentre healthcare research study: a survey of research personnels' attitudes, experiences and work load

OBJECTIVES

The DACAPO study as a multicentre nationwide observational healthcare research study investigates the influence of quality of care on the quality of life in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability to the participating research personnels by assessing attitudes, experiences and workload associated with the conduct of the DACAPO study.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective anonymous online survey was sent via email account to 169 participants in 65 study centres. The questionnaire included six different domains: (1) training for performing the study; (2) obtaining informed consent; (3) data collection; (4) data entry using the online documentation system; (5) opinion towards the study and (6) personal data. Descriptive data analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 78 participants took part (46%) in the survey, 75 questionnaires (44%) could be evaluated. 51% were senior medical specialists. 95% considered the time frame of the training as appropriate and the presentation was rated by 93% as good or very good. Time effort for obtaining consent, data collection and entry was considered by 41% as a burden. Support from the coordinating study centre was rated as good or very good by more than 90% of respondents. While the DACAPO study was seen as scientifically relevant by 81%, only 45% considered the study results valuable for improving patient care significantly.

CONCLUSION

Collecting feedback on the acceptability of a large multicentre healthcare research study provided important insights. Recruitment and data acquisition was mainly performed by physicians and often regarded as additional time burden in clinical practice. Reducing the amount of data collection and simplifying data entry could facilitate the conduct of healthcare research studies and could improve motivation of researchers in intensive care medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02637011; Pre-results.