Moving towards social inclusion: Engaging rural voices in priority setting for health.

BACKGROUND: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together-CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade-offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. METHODS: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. DISCUSSION: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community- the study represents their priorities.

What values drive communities' nutrition priorities in a resource constrained urban area in South Africa?

BACKGROUND: Voices of under-resourced communities are recognised as important yet are often unheard in decisions about healthcare resource allocation. Deliberative public engagement can serve as an effective mechanism for involving communities in establishing nutrition priorities. This study sought to identify the priorities of community members of a South African township, Soweto, and describe the underlying values driving their prioritisation process, to improve nutrition in the first 1000 days of life. METHODS: We engaged 54 community members (28 men and 26 women aged > 18 years) from Soweto. We conducted seven group discussions to determine how to allocate limited resources for prioritising nutrition interventions. We used a modified public engagement tool: CHAT (Choosing All Together) which presented 14 nutrition intervention options and their respective costs. Participants deliberated and collectively determined their nutritional priorities. Choices were captured quantitatively, while group discussions were audio-recorded. A thematic analysis was undertaken to identify the reasons and values associated with the selected priorities. RESULTS: All groups demonstrated a preference to allocate scarce resources towards three priority interventions-school breakfast provisioning, six-months paid maternity leave, and improved food safety. All but one group selected community gardens and clubs, and five groups prioritised decreasing the price of healthy food and receiving job search assistance. Participants' allocative decisions were guided by several values implicit in their choices, such as fairness and equity, efficiency, social justice, financial resilience, relational solidarity, and human development, with a strong focus on children. Priority interventions were deemed critical to supporting children's optimal development and well-being, interrupting the intergenerational cycle of poverty and poor human development in the community. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates how public engagement can facilitate the incorporation of community values and programmatic preferences into nutrition priority setting, enabling a responsive approach to local community needs, especially in resource constrained contexts. Findings could guide policy makers to facilitate more appropriate decisions and to improve nutrition in the first 1000 days of life.

Communication of patients' and family members' ethical concerns to their healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about communication between patients, families, and healthcare providers regarding ethical concerns that patients and families experience in the course of illness and medical care. To address this gap in the literature, we surveyed patients and family members to learn about their ethical concerns and the extent to which they discussed them with their healthcare providers. METHODS: We surveyed adult, English-speaking patients and family members receiving inpatient care in five hospitals in the Washington DC-Baltimore metropolitan area from July 2017 to March 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency, comfortableness, and helpfulness of discussions regarding ethical concerns experienced when sick or receiving medical care. Univariable and multivariable stepwise logistic regression models were used to identify associations between healthcare provider and respondent characteristics and attitudes and (1) the likelihood of speaking to a healthcare provider about their ethical concern and (2) their level of comfort during these discussions. RESULTS: Of 468 respondents who experienced ethical issues, 299 (64%) reported discussing the situation with a member of their healthcare team; 74% (197/265) of respondents who had such a discussion found the discussion comfortable, and 77% (176/230) of respondents found the discussion helpful. To make discussions more comfortable and helpful, respondents proposed suggestions in open-ended responses involving (1) content and quality of communication; (2) positive healthcare provider qualities such as empathy, open-mindedness, knowledge, honesty, and trustworthiness; and (3) other contextual factors including having adequate time and available resources. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and families often have ethical concerns that they discuss with clinicians, and they want clinicians to be routinely receptive and attentive to such discussions.

A Translational Role for Bioethics: Looking Back and Moving Forward.

Assumptions that bioethics was intended to focus only on a narrow set of issues related to research and health care are mistaken. The field of bioethics has long been focused on pressing contemporary issues, and it will play an unduly peripheral and less significant role than it could otherwise if it fails to focus on a broad set of issues, including human relations and the relationship of humans to nonhuman beings and the environment-and if it does not consider how to engage with others in addressing these issues. Bioethicists' traditional approaches, which emphasize an analytical role regarding values and goals, are important, but bioethicists also must include stakeholders in deliberations and consider how to translate goals into policy and practice.

Ethics Consultation in U.S. Hospitals: A National Follow-Up Study.

A 1999-2000 national study of U.S. hospitals raised concerns about ethics consultation (EC) practices and catalyzed improvement efforts. To assess how practices have changed since 2000, we administered a 105-item survey to "best informants" in a stratified random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals. This primary article details the methods for the entire study, then focuses on the 16 items from the prior study. Compared with 2000, the estimated number of case consultations performed annually rose by 94% to 68,000. The median number of consults per hospital was unchanged at 3, but more than doubled for hospitals with 400+ beds. The level of education of EC practitioners was unchanged, while the percentage of hospitals formally evaluating their ECS decreased from 28.0% to 19.1%. The gap between large, teaching hospitals and small, nonteaching hospitals widened since the prior study. We suggest targeting future improvement efforts to hospitals where needs are not being met by current approaches to EC.

Ethics Consultation in U.S. Hospitals: Opinions of Ethics Practitioners.

To design effective strategies to improve ethics consultation (EC) practices, it is important to understand the views of ethics practitioners. Previous U.S. studies of ethics practitioners have overrepresented the views of academic bioethicists. To help inform EC improvement efforts, we surveyed a random stratified sample of U.S. hospitals, examining ethics practitioners' opinions on EC in general, on their own EC service, on strategies to improve EC, and on ASBH practice standards. Respondents across all categories of hospitals had very positive perceptions of their own ethics consultation service (ECS) and few concerns about quality. Our findings suggest that the ethics-related needs of small, rural, non-teaching hospitals may be very different from those of academic medical centers, and therefore, different approaches to addressing ethical issues might be warranted.

Allocation of scarce biospecimens for use in research.

Hundreds of millions of rare biospecimens are stored in laboratories and biobanks around the world. Often, the researchers who possess these specimens do not plan to use them, while other researchers limit the scope of their work because they cannot acquire biospecimens that meet their needs. This situation raises an important and underexplored question: how should scientists allocate biospecimens that they do not intend to use? We argue that allocators should aim to maximise the social value of the research enterprise when allocating scarce biospecimens. We provide an ethical framework for assessing the social value of proposed research projects and describe how the framework could be implemented.

Health care ethics programs in U.S. Hospitals: results from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: As hospitals have grown more complex, the ethical concerns they confront have grown correspondingly complicated. Many hospitals have consequently developed health care ethics programs (HCEPs) that include far more than ethics consultation services alone. Yet systematic research on these programs is lacking. METHODS: Based on a national, cross-sectional survey of a stratified sample of 600 US hospitals, we report on the prevalence, scope, activities, staffing, workload, financial compensation, and greatest challenges facing HCEPs. RESULTS: Among 372 hospitals whose informants responded to an online survey, 97% of hospitals have HCEPs. Their scope includes clinical ethics functions in virtually all hospitals, but includes other functions in far fewer hospitals: ethical leadership (35.7%), regulatory compliance (29.0%), business ethics (26.2%), and research ethics (12.6%). HCEPs are responsible for providing ongoing ethics education to various target audiences including all staff (77.0%), nurses (59.9%), staff physicians (49.0%), hospital leadership (44.2%), medical residents (20.3%) and the community/general public (18.4%). HCEPs staff are most commonly involved in policy work through review of existing policies but are less often involved in development of new policies. HCEPs have an ethics representative in executive leadership in 80.5% of hospitals, have representation on other hospital committees in 40.7%, are actively engaged in community outreach in 22.6%, and lead large-scale ethics quality improvement initiatives in 17.7%. In general, major teaching hospitals and urban hospitals have the most highly integrated ethics programs with the broadest scope and greatest number of activities. Larger hospitals, academically affiliated hospitals, and urban hospitals have significantly more individuals performing HCEP work and significantly more individuals receiving financial compensation specifically for that work. Overall, the most common greatest challenge facing HCEPs is resource shortages, whereas underutilization is the most common greatest challenge for hospitals with fewer than 100 beds. Respondents' strategies for managing challenges include staff training and additional funds. CONCLUSIONS: While this study must be cautiously interpreted due to its limitations, the findings may be useful for understanding the characteristics of HCEPs in US hospitals and the factors associated with these characteristics. This information may contribute to exploring ways to strengthen HCEPs.

Responsibilities, Strategies, and Practice Factors in Clinical Cost Conversations: a US Physician Survey.

BACKGROUND: Physicians play a key role in mitigating and managing costs in healthcare which are rising. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a cross-sectional survey in 2017, comparing results to a 2012 survey to understand US physicians' evolving attitudes and strategies concerning healthcare costs. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 1200 US physicians from the AMA Masterfile. MEASURES: Physician views on responsibility for costs of care, enthusiasm for cost-saving strategies, cost-consciousness scale, and practice strategies on addressing cost. KEY RESULTS: Among 1200 physicians surveyed in 2017, 489 responded (41%). In 2017, slightly more physicians reported that physicians have a major responsibility for addressing healthcare costs (32% vs. 27%, p = 0.03). In 2017, more physicians attributed "major responsibility" for addressing healthcare costs to pharmaceutical companies (68% vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and hospital and health systems (63% vs. 56%%, p = 0.008) in contrast to 2012. Fewer respondents in 2017 attributed major responsibility for addressing costs to trial lawyers (53% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) and patients (42% vs. 52%, p < 0.0001) as compared to 2012. Physician enthusiasm for patient-focused cost-containment strategies like high deductible health plans and higher co-pays (62% vs. 42%, p < 0.0001 and 62% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001, not enthusiastic, respectively) declined. Physicians reported that when they discussed cost, it resulted in a change in disease management 56% of the time. Cost-consciousness within surveyed physicians had not changed meaningfully in 2017 since 2012 (31.7 vs. 31.2). Most physicians continued to agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful in their practice (> 70%). After adjusting for specialty, political affiliation, practice setting, age, and gender, only democratic/independent affiliation remained a significant predictor of cost-consciousness. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: US physicians increasingly attribute responsibility for rising healthcare costs to organizations and express less enthusiasm for strategies that increase patient out-of-pocket cost. Interventions that focus on physician knowledge and communication strategies regarding cost of care may be helpful.

Patient and Family Descriptions of Ethical Concerns.

Ethically challenging situations routinely arise in the course of illness and healthcare. However, very few studies have surveyed patients and family members about their experiences with ethically challenging situations. To address this gap in the literature, we surveyed patients and family members at three hospitals. We conducted a content analysis of their responses to open-ended questions about their most memorable experience with an ethical concern for them or their family member. Participants (N = 196) described 219 unique ethical experiences that spanned many of the prevailing themes of bioethics, including the patient-physician relationship, end-of-life care, decision-making capacity, healthcare costs, and genetic testing. Participants focused on relational issues in the course of experiencing illness and receiving medical care and concerns regarding the patient-physician encounters. Many concerns arose outside of a healthcare setting. These data indicate areas for improvement for healthcare providers but some concerns may be better addressed outside of the traditional healthcare setting.

How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?

CONTEXT: Medicaid plays a critical role in low-income, minority, and medically underserved communities, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Yet, the voices of underresourced communities are often unheard in decisions about how to allocate Medicaid's scarce resources, and traditional methods of public engagement are poorly suited to gathering such input. We argue that deliberative public engagement can be a useful tool for involving communities in setting Medicaid priorities. METHOD: We engaged 209 residents of low-income, medically underserved Michigan communities in discussions about Medicaid spending priorities using an exercise in informed deliberation: CHAT (CHoosing All Together). Participants learned about Medicaid, deliberated in small groups, and set priorities both individually and collectively. FINDINGS: Participants prioritized broad eligibility consistent with the ACA expansion, accepted some cost sharing, and prioritized spending in areas-including mental health-that are historically underfunded. Participants allocated less funding beyond benefit coverage, such as spending on healthy communities. Participants perceived the deliberative process as fair and informative, and they supported using it in the policy-making process. CONCLUSION: The choices of participants from low-income, medically underserved communities reflect a unique set of priorities and suggest that engaging low-income communities more deeply in Medicaid policy making might result in different prioritization decisions.

Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.

CONTEXT: Engaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities. METHODS: Participants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants' views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants' knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow-up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators. RESULTS: Deliberators (age 18-88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow-up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers.

Intersectionality in Clinical Medicine: The Need for a Conceptual Framework.

Intersectionality has become a significant intellectual approach for those thinking about the ways that race, gender, and other social identities converge in order to create unique forms of oppression. Although the initial work on intersectionality addressed the unique position of black women relative to both black men and white women, the concept has since been expanded to address a range of social identities. Here we consider how to apply some of the theoretical tools provided by intersectionality to the clinical context. We begin with a brief discussion of intersectionality and how it might be useful in a clinical context. We then discuss two clinical scenarios that highlight how we think considering intersectionality could lead to more successful patient-clinician interactions. Finally, we extrapolate general strategies for applying intersectionality to the clinical context before considering objections and replies.

Clinical ethics dilemmas in a low-income setting - a national survey among physicians in Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Ethical dilemmas are part of medicine, but the type of challenges, the frequency of their occurrence and the nuances in the difficulties have not been systematically studied in low-income settings. The objective of this paper was to map out the ethical dilemmas from the perspective of Ethiopian physicians working in public hospitals. METHOD: A national survey of physicians from 49 public hospitals using stratified, multi-stage sampling was conducted in six of the 11 regions in Ethiopia. Descriptive statistics were used and the responses to the open-ended question "If you have experienced any ethical dilemma, can you please describe a dilemma you have encountered in your own words?" were analyzed using a template analysis process. RESULTS: A total of 587 physicians responded (response rate 91,7%), and 565 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of 24 specified ethically challenging situations were reported to be experienced often or sometimes by more than 50% of the physicians. The most frequently reported challenge concerned resource distribution: 93% agreed that they often or sometimes had to make difficult choices due to resource limitation, and 83% often or sometimes encountered difficulties because patients were unable to pay for the preferred course of treatment. Other frequently reported difficulties were doubts about doing good or harming the patient, relating to conflicting views, concern for family welfare, disclosure issues and caring for patients not able to consent. Few reported dilemmas related to end-of-life issues. The 200 responses to the open-ended question mirrored the quantitative results. DISCUSSION: Ethiopian physicians report ethical challenges related more to bedside rationing and fairness concerns than futility discussions and conflicts about autonomy as described in studies from high-income countries. In addition to the high report of experienced challenges, gravity of the dilemmas that are present in their narratives are striking. Recognition of the everyday experiences of physicians in low-income settings should prompt the development of ethics teaching and support mechanisms, discussion of ethical guidelines as well as increase our focus on how to improve the grave resource scarcity they describe.

How Surrogate Decision-Makers for Patients With Chronic Critical Illness Perceive and Carry Out Their Role.

OBJECTIVES: Family members commonly make medical decision for patients with chronic critical illness. This study examines how family members approach this decision-making role in real time. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of interviews with family members in the intervention arm of a randomized controlled communication trial. SETTINGS: Medical ICUs at four U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Family members of patients with chronic critical illness (adults mechanically ventilated for ≥ 7 d and expected to remain ventilated and survive for ≥ 72 hr) who participated in the active arm of a communication intervention study. INTERVENTIONS: Family members participated in at least two content-guided, informational, and emotional support meetings led by a palliative care physician and nurse practitioner. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Grounded theory was used for qualitative analysis of 66 audio recordings of meetings with 51 family members. Family members perceived their role in four main ways: voice of the patient, advocate for the patient, advocate for others, and advocate for oneself. Their decision-making was characterized by balancing goals, sharing their role, keeping perspective, remembering previous experiences, finding sources of strength, and coping with various burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Family members take a multifaceted approach as they participate in decision-making. Understanding how surrogates perceive and act in their roles may facilitate shared decision-making among clinicians and families during critical care.

Members of Minority and Underserved Communities Set Priorities for Health Research.

Policy Points Engaging and involving underrepresented communities when setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. Groups and individuals from minority and underserved communities strongly prioritized child health and mental health research, often choosing to invest at the highest possible level. Groups consisting of predominantly Native American or Arab American participants invested in culture and beliefs research at the highest level, while many groups did not select it at all. The priority given to culture and beliefs research by these groups illustrates the importance of paying special attention to unique preferences, and not just commonly held views, when getting public input on spending priorities for research. CONTEXT: A major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources-including resources for science-allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research. METHODS: Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities. We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups. FINDINGS: The participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research. CONCLUSIONS: Minority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.

The ethics of uninsured participants accessing healthcare in biomedical research: A literature review.

Background/aims Sparse literature exists on the challenges and ethical considerations of including people with limited access to healthcare, such as the uninsured and low-income, in clinical research in high-income countries. However, many ethical issues should be considered with respect to working with uninsured and low-income participants in clinical research, including enrollment and retention, ancillary care, and post-trial responsibilities. Attention to the uninsured and low-income is particularly salient in the United States due to the high rates of uninsurance and underinsurance. Thus, we conducted a scoping review on the ethical considerations of biomedical clinical research with uninsured and low-income participants in high-income countries in order to describe what is known and to pinpoint areas of needed research on this issue. Methods MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched using terms that described main concepts of interest (e.g., uninsured, underinsured, access to healthcare, poverty, ethics, compensation, clinical research). Articles were included if they met four inclusion criteria: (1) English, (2) high-income countries context, (3) about research participants who are uninsured or low-income, which limits their access to healthcare, and in biomedical clinical research that either had a prospect of direct medical benefit or was offered to them on the basis of their ill health, and (4) recognizes and/or addresses challenges or ethical considerations of uninsured or low-income participants in biomedical clinical research. Results The searches generated a total of 974 results. Ultimately, 23 papers were included in the scoping review. Of 23 articles, the majority (n = 19) discussed enrollment and retention of uninsured or low-income participants. Several barriers to enrolling uninsured and low-income groups were identified, including limited access to primary or preventive care; lack of access to institutions conducting trials or physicians with enough time or knowledge about trials; overall lack of trust in the government, research, or medical system; and logistical issues. Considerably fewer articles discussed treatment of these participants during the course of research (n = 5) or post-trial responsibilities owed to them (n = 4). Thus, we propose a research agenda that builds upon the existing literature by addressing three broad questions: (1) What is the current status of uninsured research participants in biomedical clinical research in high-income countries? (2) How should uninsured research participants be treated during and after clinical research? (3) How, if at all, should additional protections for uninsured research participants affect their enrollment? Conclusions This review reveals significant gaps in both data and thoughtful analysis on how to ethically involve uninsured research participants. To address these gaps, we propose a research agenda to gather needed data and theoretical analysis that addresses three broad research questions.

The Voice of Surrogate Decision-Makers. Family Responses to Prognostic Information in Chronic Critical Illness.

RATIONALE: Information from clinicians about the expected course of the patient's illness is relevant and important for decision-making by surrogates for chronically critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation. OBJECTIVES: To observe how surrogates of chronically critically ill patients respond to information about prognosis from palliative care clinicians. METHODS: This was a qualitative analysis of a consecutive sample of audio-recorded meetings from a larger, multisite, randomized trial of structured informational and supportive meetings led by a palliative care physician and nurse practitioner for surrogates of patients in medical intensive care units with chronic critical illness (i.e., adults mechanically ventilated for ≥7 days and expected to remain ventilated and survive for ≥72 h). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 66 audio-recorded meetings involving 51 intervention group surrogates for 43 patients were analyzed using grounded theory. Six main categories of surrogate responses to prognostic information were identified: (1) receptivity, (2) deflection/rejection, (3) emotion, (4) characterization of patient, (5) consideration of surrogate role, and (6) mobilization of support. Surrogates responded in multiple and even antithetical ways, within and across meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic disclosure by skilled clinician communicators evokes a repertoire of responses from surrogates for the chronically critically ill. Recognition of these response patterns may help all clinicians better communicate their support to patients and families facing chronic critical illness and inform interventions to support surrogate decision-makers in intensive care units. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01230099).