The Vehicle, Fall 1987

Table of Contents Sketches in the SunRodger L. Patiencepage 3 Reflecting PoolRob Montgomerypage 5 Grandpa\u27s Porcelain DollRichard E. Hallpage 6 Tintype 1837Catherine Friemannpage 6 PhotographSteven M. Beamerpage 7 Washerwoman\u27s SongBob Zordanipage 8 Scrambled Eggs for D.O.Lynne A. Rafoolpage 8 my mother would sayMonica Grothpage 9 Retired by His ChildrenDan Von Holtenpage 10 I am the oldestMonica Grothpage 11 Ice on WheatRob Montgomerypage 12 The Nature of the RoseTroy Mayfieldpage 12 Past NebraskaDan Hornbostelpage 13 Five Minute Jamaican VacationChristy Dunphypage 14 PhotographSteven M. Beamerpage 14 The Angry PoemChristy Dunphypage 15 Road UnfamiliarChristy Dunphypage 15 raised voicesMonica Grothpage 16 Old Ladies & MiniskirtsKara Shannonpage 17 FreakspeakBob Zordanipage 18 PortraitDan Von Holtenpage 18 Mobile VacuumKathleen L. Fairfieldpage 19 Rev. Fermus DickSteve Hagemannpage 20 PhotographSteven M. Beamerpage 21 What\u27s the Name of That Flower?Richard Jesse Davispage 22 RequestChristy Dunphypage 23 SketchPaul Seabaughpage 24 ExperiencedMarilyn Wilsonpage 26 Leaving: Two ViewsTina Phillipspage 27 AntaeusDan Von Holtenpage 28 Misogyny at 19J. D. Finfrockpage 29 A Mental CrippleSteve Hagemannpage 32 AssociationsRhonda Ealypage 33 Banana BreadGail Bowerpage 34 Bill and JackBradford B. Autenpage 35 After Image No. 2Rob Montgomerypage 35 VrrooomBeth Goodmanpage 36 Mr. Modern LoverMolly Maddenpage 36 TravelogueRodger L. Patiencepage 37 Down the HighwayJoan Sebastianpage 38 A Retread HeavenRob Montgomerypage 41 StuporDan Von Holtenpage 42 Love Poem After a Seizure in Your BedBob Zordanipage 43 PalsyChristy Dunphypage 44 Interview with Mr. MatthewsBob Zordanipage 45 Chasing Down Hot Air Balloons on a Sunday MorningRob Montgomerypage 48https://thekeep.eiu.edu/vehicle/1049/thumbnail.jp

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal