Research Techniques Made Simple: An Introduction to Qualitative Research

Journal of Investigative Dermatology · 2021 · 91 citations

• Computer Science
• Sociology
• Social Science

Effectiveness and Ethics of Incentives for Research Participation

JAMA Internal Medicine · 2021 · 77 citations

• Medicine
• Family medicine
• Physical therapy

Importance: Incentivizing research participation is controversial and variably regulated because of uncertainty regarding whether financial incentives serve as undue inducements by diminishing peoples' sensitivity to research risks or unjust inducements by preferentially increasing enrollment among underserved individuals. Objective: To determine whether incentives improve enrollment in real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or serve as undue or unjust inducements. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two RCTs of incentives that were embedded in 2 parent RCTs, 1 comparing smoking cessation interventions (conducted at smoking cessation clinics in 2 health systems) and 1 evaluating an ambulation intervention (conducted across wards of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) included all persons eligible for the parent trials who did not have prior knowledge of the incentives trials. Recruitment occurred from September 2017 to August 2019 for the smoking trial and January 2018 through May 2019 for the ambulation trial; data were analyzed from January 2020 to July 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to incentives of $0, $200, or $500 for participating in the smoking cessation trial and $0, $100, or $300 for the ambulation trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of each incentive trial was the proportion of people assigned to each recruitment strategy that consented to participate. Each trial was powered to test the hypotheses that incentives served neither as undue inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and perceived research risk, as measured using a 10-point scale, on the primary outcome), nor unjust inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and participants' self-reported income). Noninferiority methods were used to test whether the data were compatible with these 2 effects of incentives and superiority methods to compare the primary and other secondary outcomes. Results: There were a total of 654 participants (327 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.1] years; 394 Black/African American [60.2%], 214 White [32.7%], and 24 multiracial individuals [3.7%]) in the smoking trial, and 642 participants (364 women [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.6] years; 224 Black/African American [34.9%], 335 White [52.2%], and 5 multiracial individuals [0.8%]) in the ambulation trial. Incentives significantly increased consent rates among those in the smoking trial in 47 of 216 (21.8%), 78 of 217 (35.9%), and 104 of 221 (47.1%) in the $0, $200, and $500 groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each increase in incentive, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17; P < .001). Incentives did not increase consent among those in the ambulation trial: 98 of 216 (45.4%), 102 of 212 (48.1%), and 92 of 214 (43.0%) in the $0, $100, and $300 groups, respectively (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22; P = .45). In neither trial was there evidence of undue or unjust inducement (upper confidence limits of ORs for undue inducement, 1.15 and 0.99; P < .001 showing noninferiority; upper confidence limits of ORs for unjust inducement, 1.21 and 1.26; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). There were no significant effects of incentive size on the secondary outcomes in either trial, including time spent reviewing the risk sections of consent forms, perceived research risks, trial understanding, perceived coercion, or therapeutic misconceptions. Conclusions and Relevance: In these 2 randomized clinical trials, financial incentives increased trial enrollment in 1 of 2 trials and did not produce undue or unjust inducement or other unintended consequences in either trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697799.

What Matters to Patients and Their Families During and After Critical Illness: A Qualitative Study

American Journal of Critical Care · 2021 · 70 citations

• Medicine
• Family medicine
• Nursing

BACKGROUND: Despite increased emphasis on providing higher-quality patient- and family-centered care in the intensive care unit (ICU), there are no widely accepted definitions of such care in the ICU. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) aspects of care that patients and families valued during their ICU encounter, (2) outcomes that patients and families prioritized after hospital discharge, and (3) outcomes perceived as equivalent to or worse than death. METHODS: Semistructured interviews (n = 49) of former patients of an urban, academic medical ICU and their family members. Two investigators reviewed all transcripts line by line to identify key concepts. Codes were created and defined in a codebook with decision rules for their application and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Salient themes were identified and grouped into 2 major categories: (1) processes of care within the ICU- communication, patient comfort, and a sense that the medical team was "doing everything" (ie, providing exhaustive medical care) and (2) patient and surrogate outcomes after the ICU-survival, quality of life, physical function, and cognitive function. Several outcomes were deemed worse than death: severe cognitive/physical disability, dependence on medical machinery/equipment, and severe/constant pain. CONCLUSION: Although survival was important, most participants qualified this preference. Simple measures of mortality rates may not represent patient- or family-centered outcomes in evaluations of ICU-based interventions, and new measures that incorporate functional outcomes and patients' and family members' views of life quality are necessary to promote patient-centered, evidence-based care.

Views From Patients With Cancer in the Setting of Unplanned Acute Care: Informing Approaches to Reduce Health Care Utilization

JCO Oncology Practice · 2020 · 23 citations

• Medicine
• Family medicine
• Emergency medicine

PURPOSE: New oncology care delivery models that avoid preventable acute care are needed, yet it is unclear which interventions best meet the needs of patients and caregivers. Perspectives from patients who experienced unplanned acute care events may inform the successful development and implementation of care delivery models. METHODS: We performed a qualitative interview study of patients with solid tumors on active treatment who experienced the following 3 types of unplanned acute care events: emergency department visits, first hospitalizations, and multiple hospitalizations. Patients were prospectively recruited within a large academic health system from August 2018 to January 2019. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide developed from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The constant comparative approach was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were interviewed; 51% were men, 75% were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 57.4 years (standard deviation, 1.9 years). Fifty-five percent of patients had metastatic disease, and 33% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 3-4. We identified the following key themes: drivers of the decision to seek acute care, patients' emotional concerns that influence interactions with the oncology team, and strategies used to avoid acute care. Patients' recommendations for interventions included anticipatory guidance, peer support, improved triage methods, and enhanced symptom management. Patients preferred options for virtual and home-based outpatient care. CONCLUSION: Patient-centered care models should focus on early delivery of supportive interventions that help patients and caregivers navigate the unexpected issues that come with cancer treatment. Patients advocate for proactive, multidisciplinary supportive interventions that enable home-based care and are led by the primary oncology team.

Prevalence of Continuous Pulse Oximetry Monitoring in Hospitalized Children With Bronchiolitis Not Requiring Supplemental Oxygen

JAMA · 2020 · 52 citations

• Medicine
• Intensive care medicine
• Emergency medicine

Importance: US national guidelines discourage the use of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in hospitalized children with bronchiolitis who do not require supplemental oxygen. Objective: Measure continuous pulse oximetry use in children with bronchiolitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter cross-sectional study was performed in pediatric wards in 56 US and Canadian hospitals in the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings Network from December 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019. Participants included a convenience sample of patients aged 8 weeks through 23 months with bronchiolitis who were not receiving active supplemental oxygen administration. Patients with extreme prematurity, cyanotic congenital heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, home respiratory support, neuromuscular disease, immunodeficiency, or cancer were excluded. Exposures: Hospitalization with bronchiolitis without active supplemental oxygen administration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, receipt of continuous pulse oximetry, was measured using direct observation. Continuous pulse oximetry use percentages were risk standardized using the following variables: nighttime (11 pm to 7 am), age combined with preterm birth, time after weaning from supplemental oxygen or flow, apnea or cyanosis during the present illness, neurologic impairment, and presence of an enteral feeding tube. Results: The sample included 3612 patient observations in 33 freestanding children's hospitals, 14 children's hospitals within hospitals, and 9 community hospitals. In the sample, 59% were male, 56% were white, and 15% were black; 48% were aged 8 weeks through 5 months, 28% were aged 6 through 11 months, 16% were aged 12 through 17 months, and 9% were aged 18 through 23 months. The overall continuous pulse oximetry monitoring use percentage in these patients, none of whom were receiving any supplemental oxygen or nasal cannula flow, was 46% (95% CI, 40%-53%). Hospital-level unadjusted continuous pulse oximetry use ranged from 2% to 92%. After risk standardization, use ranged from 6% to 82%. Intraclass correlation coefficient suggested that 27% (95% CI, 19%-36%) of observed variation was attributable to unmeasured hospital-level factors. Conclusions and Relevance: In a convenience sample of children hospitalized with bronchiolitis who were not receiving active supplemental oxygen administration, monitoring with continuous pulse oximetry was frequent and varied widely among hospitals. Because of the apparent absence of a guideline- or evidence-based indication for continuous monitoring in this population, this practice may represent overuse.