FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2894963206> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2894963206 endingPage "578" @default.
• W2894963206 startingPage "567" @default.
• W2894963206 abstract "Background There has been debate about the role of consent in pragmatic trials comparing qualitatively similar interventions. Consent preferences may differ in acute care contexts, given severe illness, time constraints, and other barriers to consent. In addition, studies have not assessed the impact of disclosing financial considerations as a justification for trials. This study was designed to assess preferences of the general public regarding consent for a pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Methods This survey was completed using an online, probability-based panel representative of the US population. It incorporated a randomized, experimental (2 × 2) design assessing (1) preference for written consent versus an alternative (notification after enrollment or brief verbal consent) and (2) impact of including cost as a motivating factor for the trial. The survey used a scenario based on a recent pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Primary independent variables were personal preference and recommendation as a member of a review board regarding written consent versus the assigned alternative strategy and personal attitude toward trial enrollment. Descriptive analyses were conducted using post-stratification weights. Regression models were created to examine relationships between demographic variables and consent preference and willingness to enroll. Provision of cost information was incorporated into a regression model to examine its impact on consent preference. Results The study included 2027 participants. Of those participants, 51.1% versus 45.8% stated a personal preference for written consent versus notification after enrollment; however, 60.0% versus 35.5% preferred brief verbal consent to written consent. Even among respondents stating they would be unlikely to enroll in the trial if asked, more respondents (50.6%) preferred brief verbal consent. The preference for verbal consent was generally shared across demographic categories, although lower educational attainment was associated with reduced acceptance (p = 0.001 for trend). Respondents were more likely to support an alternative to written consent when asked their personal preference than when asked their recommendation as a member of a review board. The provision of cost information did not have a meaningful effect on consent preferences, attitudes toward enrollment, or views about the study. Conclusion Respondents generally supported prospective involvement in enrollment decisions in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and were particularly supportive of brief verbal consent. This support persisted across demographic categories. The finding that individuals were more likely to support alternatives to written consent when asked for a personal preference rather than as a “committee member” suggests that conservative institutional approaches to consent could hinder implementation of more patient-centered approaches. The role of cost transparency in consent discussions warrants further study." @default.
• W2894963206 created "2018-10-12" @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5026093431 @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5042129464 @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5065618670 @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5070792381 @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5079707625 @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5087095863 @default.
• W2894963206 creator A5090329738 @default.
• W2894963206 date "2018-10-03" @default.
• W2894963206 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2894963206 title "Understanding preferences regarding consent for pragmatic trials in acute care" @default.
• W2894963206 cites W1801913960 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W1854122361 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W1965316158 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W1970333652 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W1993632861 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W1998379045 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2004303158 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2022826022 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2024121485 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2066788882 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2089985096 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2090153260 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2093044223 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2109720070 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2113614446 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2114758846 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2121908294 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2129785068 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2169490447 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2201343545 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2204456048 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2206083877 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2276007513 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2511088728 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2563668749 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2770685784 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2792649094 @default.
• W2894963206 cites W2801081612 @default.
• W2894963206 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774518801007" @default.
• W2894963206 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6218277" @default.
• W2894963206 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30280582" @default.
• W2894963206 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2894963206 type Work @default.
• W2894963206 sameAs 2894963206 @default.
• W2894963206 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2894963206 countsByYear W28949632062020 @default.
• W2894963206 countsByYear W28949632062021 @default.
• W2894963206 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5026093431 @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5042129464 @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5065618670 @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5070792381 @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5079707625 @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5087095863 @default.
• W2894963206 hasAuthorship W2894963206A5090329738 @default.
• W2894963206 hasBestOaLocation W28949632062 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C2781249084 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C68122502 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C142724271 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C15744967 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C159110408 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C162324750 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C175444787 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C204787440 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C27415008 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C2781249084 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C2908647359 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C512399662 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C68122502 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C71924100 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C77805123 @default.
• W2894963206 hasConceptScore W2894963206C99454951 @default.
• W2894963206 hasFunder F4320306363 @default.
• W2894963206 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2894963206 hasLocation W28949632061 @default.
• W2894963206 hasLocation W28949632062 @default.
• W2894963206 hasLocation W28949632063 @default.
• W2894963206 hasLocation W28949632064 @default.
• W2894963206 hasOpenAccess W2894963206 @default.
• W2894963206 hasPrimaryLocation W28949632061 @default.
• W2894963206 hasRelatedWork W1988185375 @default.
• W2894963206 hasRelatedWork W2060706512 @default.
• W2894963206 hasRelatedWork W2067443318 @default.
• W2894963206 hasRelatedWork W2075959928 @default.

• next