4.2 Article

Improving Research Enrollment of Severe Burn Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 E807-E813

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000489

关键词

-

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. Steris Inc.
  3. Scynexis
  4. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  5. National Institutes of Health [KL2TR001109]
  6. NIGMS [K08GM109106-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enrolling severely burn injured patients into prospective research studies poses specific challenges to investigators. The authors describe their experience of recruiting adults with >= 20% TBSA burns or inhalation injury admitted to a single academic burn unit into observational research with minimally invasive specimen collection. The authors outline iterative changes that they made to their recruitment processes in response to perceived weaknesses leading to delays in enrollment. The primary outcome was the change in days to consent for enrolled patients or cessation of recruitment for nonenrolled patients before and after the interventional modifications. The authors assessed change in overall enrollment as a secondary outcome. Study enrollment was approximately 70% in both 4-month study periods before and after the intervention. Following the intervention, time to consent by surrogate decision maker decreased from a median of 26.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 14-41) to 3 days (IQR 3-6) (P = .004). Time to initial consent by patient changed from a median of 15 days (IQR 2-30) to 3 days (IQR 2-6) (P = .27). Time to decline for nonenrolled patients decreased from a median of 12 days (IQR 6.5-27) to 1.5 days (IQR 1-3.5) (P = .026). Both the findings of the study and a brief literature review suggest that careful design of the recruitment protocol, increased experience of the study team, and broad time windows for both approach and enrollment improve the efficiency of recruiting critically injured burn patients into research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据