6 research outputs found

    David\u27s Protection Racket

    No full text
    The brief episode involving David and a man named Nabal raises questions about David\u27s character. An examination of David\u27s motives and actions in this week\u27s article sheds light on this curious time in David\u27s life

    Devil/Satan, Lament, Legalism, Temple

    No full text
    Encyclopedia entries on Devil/Satan, Lament, Legalism, Temple

    David\u27s Protection Racket

    No full text
    The brief episode involving David and a man named Nabal raises questions about David\u27s character. An examination of David\u27s motives and actions in this week\u27s article sheds light on this curious time in David\u27s life

    Devil/Satan, Lament, Legalism, Temple

    No full text
    Encyclopedia entries on Devil/Satan, Lament, Legalism, Temple

    Stakeholders’ perspectives on clinical trial acceptability and approach to consent within a limited timeframe: a mixed methods study

    No full text
    Objectives The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.Design A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.Setting Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.Participants Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.Results Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.Conclusion Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.Trial registration number ISRCTN11746266

    7. Literatur

    No full text
    corecore