Measuring continuing medical education conference impact and attendee experience: a scoping review.

Objectives: The aim was to comprehensively identify published research evaluating continuing medical education conferences, to search for validated tools and perform a content analysis to identify the relevant domains for conference evaluation. Methods: We used scoping review methodology and searched MEDLINE® for relevant English or French literature published between 2008 and 2022 (last search June 3, 2022). Original research (including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, cohort, mixed-methods, qualitative studies, and editorial pieces) where investigators described impact, experience, or motivations related to conference attendance were eligible. Citations were assessed in triplicate, and data extracted in duplicate. Results: Eighty-three studies were included, 69 (83%) of which were surveys or interview based, with the majority conducted at the end of or following conference conclusion. Of the 74 tools identified, only one was validated and was narrowly focused on a specific conference component. A total of 620 items were extracted and categorized into 4 a priori suggested domains (engagement-networking, education-learning, impact, scholarship), and an additional 4 identified through content analysis (value-satisfaction, logistics, equity-diversity-inclusivity, career influences). Time trends were evident, including the absence of items related to equity-diversity-inclusivity prior to 2019, and a focus on logistics, particularly technology and virtual conferences, since 2020. Conclusions: This study identified 8 major domains relevant for continuing medical education conference evaluation. This work is of immediate value to individuals and organizations seeking to either design or evaluate a conference and represents a critical step in the development of a standardized tool for conference evaluation.

Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to describe consent models used in Canadian-led adult and pediatric intensive care unit (ICU/PICU) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our secondary objectives were to determine the consent rate of ICU/PICU RCTs that did and did not use an alternate consent model to describe consent procedures. SOURCE: Using scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (from 1998 to June 2019) for trials published in English or French. We included Canadian-led RCTs that reported on the effects of an intervention on ICU/PICU patients or their families. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, abstracted data, and achieved consensus. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 48 RCTs of 17,558 patients. Included RCTs had ethics approval to use prior informed consent (43/48; 90%), deferred consent (13/48; 27%), waived consent (5/48; 10%), and verbal consent (1/48; 2%) models. Fifteen RCTs (15/48; 31%) had ethics approval to use more than one consent model. Twice as many trials used alternate consent between 2010 and 2019 (13/19) than between 2000 and 2009 (6/19). The consent rate for RCTs using only prior informed consent ranged from 54 to 91% (ICU) and 43 to 94% (PICU) and from 78 to 100% (ICU) and 74 to 87% (PICU) in trials using an alternate/hybrid consent model. CONCLUSION: Alternate consent models were used in the minority of Canadian-led ICU/PICU RCTs but have been used more frequently over the last decade. This suggests that Canadian ethics boards and research communities are becoming more accepting of alternate consent models in ICU/PICU trials.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif principal était de décrire les modèles de consentement utilisés dans les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) menées par des chercheurs canadiens dans les unités de soins intensifs adultes et pédiatriques (USI/USIP). Nos objectifs secondaires étaient de déterminer le taux de consentement aux ERC à l'USI et l'USIP qui utilisaient et n'utilisaient pas un autre modèle de consentement pour décrire les processus de consentement. SOURCES: À l'aide d'une méthodologie d'étude de portée, nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL (de 1998 à juin 2019) pour en tirer les études publiées en anglais ou en français. Nous avons inclus des ERC dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens qui rapportaient les effets d'une intervention sur les patients à l'USI/USIP ou leurs familles. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont évalué l'admissibilité, résumé les données et atteint un consensus. RéSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Nous avons identifié 48 ERC portant sur 17 558 patients. Les ERC incluses avaient obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour l'utilisation de modèles de consentement éclairé préalable (43/48; 90 %), de consentement différé (13/48; 27 %), de renoncement au consentement (5/48; 10 %) et de consentement verbal (1/48; 2 %). Quinze ERC (15/48; 31 %) avaient reçu l'approbation du comité d'éthique pour utiliser plus d'un modèle de consentement. Deux fois plus d'études ont utilisé un autre type de consentement entre 2010 et 2019 (13/19) qu'entre 2000 et 2009 (6/19). Le taux de consentement pour les ERC utilisant uniquement un consentement éclairé préalable variait de 54 à 91 % (USI) et de 43 à 94 % (USIP), contre 78 à 100 % (USI) et 74 à 87 % (USIP) pour les études utilisant un modèle de consentement alternatif/hybride. CONCLUSION: Des modèles de consentement alternatif ont été utilisés dans une minorité des ERC en USI/USIP dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens, mais ils ont été utilisés plus fréquemment au cours de la dernière décennie. Cela donne à penser que les comités d'éthique et les communautés de recherche canadiens acceptent de plus en plus les modèles de consentement alternatifs dans les études réalisées en USI et en USIP.

Parental Understanding of Research Consent Forms in the PICU: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe legal guardians' understanding of key concepts in a research consent form presented within 24 hours of their child's admission to the PICU and to explore legal guardians' opinions of the format (language, length) of the consent form and the overall consent process. DESIGN: Single-center, exploratory pilot study. SETTING: PICU at a tertiary-care hospital in Canada. SUBJECTS: Forty-one English- and French-speaking legal guardians of children less than 18 years old, who had been admitted to the PICU within the past 24 hours and were expected to stay at least 48 hours, between October 2018 and February 2019. INTERVENTIONS: The consent form from a previous PICU trial was given and explained to legal guardians within 24 hours of their child's admission to the PICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Legal guardians' understanding of key concepts in the consent form was evaluated using a questionnaire the day after the form was explained, and opinions were collected verbally and using an additional survey. The median number of questions answered incorrectly was three of seven (interquartile range = 2-4). Participants best understood the topic of the study (5% incorrect), but 80% of participants were unable to recall a single risk. The median rating of the language in the form was five of five (very easy to understand; interquartile range = 4-5), and 88% of participants said it was a reasonable length. CONCLUSIONS: Despite positive opinions of the consent form, most legal guardians did not understand all key components of the consent information provided to them orally and in writing within 24 hours of their child's PICU admission. Future studies are required to determine barriers to understanding and explore alternative approaches to obtaining consent in this setting.