RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent. METHODS: Survey of primary trial reports, published 2014-2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: Among 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001). DISCUSSION: Not obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public's trust in research.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia, and leading cause of ischemic stroke. Despite proven effectiveness, warfarin remains an under-used treatment in atrial fibrillation patients. We sought to study, across three physician specialties, a range of factors that have been argued to have a disproportionate effect on treatment decisions. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of Canadian Family Doctors (FD: n = 500), Geriatricians (G: n = 149), and Internal Medicine specialists (IMS: n = 500). Of these, 1032 physicians were contactable, and 335 completed and usable responses were received. Survey questions and clinical vignettes asked about the frequency with which they see patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment practices, and barriers to the prescription of anticoagulants. RESULTS: Stated prescribing practices did not significantly differ between physician groups. Falls risk, bleeding risk and poor patient adherence were all highly cited barriers to prescribing warfarin. Fewer geriatricians indicated that history of patient falls would be a reason for not treating with warfarin (G: 47%; FD: 71%; IMS: 72%), and significantly fewer changed reported practice in the presence of falls risk (χ (2) (6) = 45.446, p < 0.01). Experience of a patient having a stroke whilst not on warfarin had a significant impact on vignette decisions; physicians who had had patients who experienced a stroke were more likely to prescribe warfarin (χ (2) (3) =10.7, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to treatment of atrial fibrillation with warfarin affect physician specialties to different extents. Prior experience of a patient suffering a stroke when not prescribed warfarin is positively associated with intention to prescribe warfarin, even in the presence of falls risk.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of pandemic vaccine campaigns such as the H1N1 vaccine rollout is dependent on both the vaccines' effectiveness and the general public's willingness to be vaccinated. It is therefore critical to understand the factors that influence the decision of members of the public whether to get vaccinated with new, emergently released vaccines. METHODS: A systematic review of English language quantitative surveys was conducted to identify consistent predictors of the decision to accept or decline any (pre)pandemic vaccine, including the H1N1 influenza A vaccine. A total of ten studies were included in this review and all pertained to the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic. Respondents' willingness to receive a pandemic vaccine ranged from 8%-67% across the ten studies. The factors reported to be consistent predictors of the intention to vaccinate were: risk of infection, proximity or severity of the public health event, severity of personal consequences resulting from the illness, harm or adverse events from the vaccine, acceptance of previous vaccination, and ethnicity. Age and sex were the demographic variables examined most frequently across the ten studies and there was no consistent association between these variables and the intention to accept or reject a pandemic vaccine. CONCLUSION: Some predictors of the intention to accept or decline a (pre)pandemic vaccine or the H1N1 influenza A vaccine are consistently identified by surveys. Understanding the important factors influencing the acceptance of a pandemic vaccine by individual members of the public may help inform strategies to improve vaccine uptake during future pandemics.
RESUMO
Approximately one-quarter of all Canadian children will seek emergency care in any given year, with the two most common medical problems affecting children in the emergency department (ED) being acute respiratory illness and injury. Treatment for some medical conditions in the ED remains controversial due to a lack of strong supporting evidence. The purpose of this paper is to describe a multi-centre team grant in pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) that has been recently funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). This program of research integrates clinical research (in the areas of acute respiratory illness and injury) and knowledge translation (KT). This initiative includes seven distinct projects that address the objective to generate new evidence for clinical care and KT in the pediatric ED. Five of the seven research projects in this team grant make significant contributions to knowledge development in KT science, and these contributions are the focus of this paper. The research designs employed in this program include: cross-sectional surveys, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs with interrupted time-series analysis and staggered implementation strategies, and qualitative designs. This team grant provides unique opportunities for making important KT methodological developments, with a particular focus on developing a better theoretical understanding of the causal mechanisms and effect modifiers of different KT interventions.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin. METHODS: For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete. DISCUSSION: This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.