Community Consultation and Public Disclosure for the Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation
Lewis, A. A.; Israel, T. L.; Seitz, K. P.; Driver, B. E.; Gibbs, K. W.; Ginde, A. A.; Trent, S. A.; Russell, D. W.; Prekker, M. E.; Robinson, A. E.; Palakshappa, J. A.; Gaillard, J. P.; Stewart, L. J.; Beach, L. L.; Lloyd, B. D.; DeMasi, S. C.; Hays, M. A.; Withers, C.; Sullivan, A. E.; Lyle, C.; Whitson, M. R.; Gould, B.; Rice, T. W.; Self, W. H.; Han, J. H.; Semler, M. W.; Casey, J. D.; Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group,
Show abstract
BackgroundRandomized trials evaluating emergency treatments may be conducted with Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) when prospective informed consent is infeasible. In EFIC trials, a period of community consultation and public disclosure precedes initiation of enrollment. The Randomized Trial of Sedative Choice for Intubation (RSI) is a 2,364-patient randomized trial being conducted with EFIC in 14 emergency departments and intensive care units across the United States. This manuscript reports the approach to community consultation and public disclosure in the RSI trial. MethodsCommunity consultation and public disclosure were conducted locally in each of the 5 regions of enrolling sites. The coordinating center provided sites with templates and access to an engagement coordinator to assist with developing and executing site plans. ResultsCommunity consultation and public disclosure occurred at the coordinating center from February 2021-January 2022 and in the regions of the five additional enrolling sites from September 2023-June 2024. Community consultation included in-person surveys with 789 patients or family members in emergency department or intensive care unit waiting rooms and invitation of more than 200 local groups to town halls or community engagement studios. Public disclosure included (i) social media advertisements viewed more than 1.2 million times, (ii) a trial website with more than 16,000 unique visitors, (iii) informational flyers in hospitals and public settings, and (iv) featured information in traditional media. Completing local community consultation and public disclosure required an average of 139 hours of research personnel time and approximately $18,822 at each site, in addition to coordinating center effort and costs. ConclusionsPre-trial community consultation activities in the RSI trial engaged over 1,000 patients, families, and community members and public disclosure reached over 1.2 million community members. While the total cost and duration of activities at sites were substantially lower than reported in prior EFIC trials, these costs remained significant.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Statistical Analysis Plan for the Stepped-wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial of Electronic Early Notification of Sepsis in Hospitalized Ward Patients (SCREEN): a study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial 94%
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 93%
- Decision support system to evaluate VENTilation in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (DeVENT study) – Trial Protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 94%
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
- Doxycycline for the prevention of progression of COVID-19 to severe disease requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission: a randomized, controlled, open-label, parallel group trial (DOXPREVENT.ICU) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 94%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
- Interventions for the management of post COVID-19 condition (long COVID): Protocol for a living systematic review & network meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Prone positioning of patients with moderate hypoxia due to COVID-19: A multicenter pragmatic randomized trial [COVID-PRONE] 93%
- Clinical Decision Support in Cardiovascular Medicine: Effectiveness, Implementation Barriers, and Regulation 92%
- Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 94%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 93%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.