Inviting parents to take part in paediatric palliative care research: A mixed-methods examination of selection bias

Author:

Crocker Joanna C12,Beecham Emma13,Kelly Paula14,Dinsdale Andrew P1,Hemsley June1,Jones Louise3,Bluebond-Langner Myra15

Affiliation:

1. Louis Dundas Centre for Children’s Palliative Care, Great Ormond Street Hospital, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK

2. Health Experiences Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

3. Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Unit, UCL Division of Psychiatry, London, UK

4. Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King’s College London, London, UK

5. Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA

Abstract

Background: Recruitment to paediatric palliative care research is challenging, with high rates of non-invitation of eligible families by clinicians. The impact on sample characteristics is unknown. Aim: To investigate, using mixed methods, non-invitation of eligible families and ensuing selection bias in an interview study about parents’ experiences of advance care planning (ACP). Design: We examined differences between eligible families invited and not invited to participate by clinicians using (1) field notes of discussions with clinicians during the invitation phase and (2) anonymised information from the service’s clinical database. Setting: Families were eligible for the ACP study if their child was receiving care from a UK-based tertiary palliative care service (Group A; N = 519) or had died 6–10 months previously having received care from the service (Group B; N = 73). Results: Rates of non-invitation to the ACP study were high. A total of 28 (5.4%) Group A families and 21 (28.8%) Group B families ( p < 0.0005) were invited. Family–clinician relationship appeared to be a key factor associated qualitatively with invitation in both groups. In Group A, out-of-hours contact with family was statistically associated with invitation (adjusted odds ratio 5.46 (95% confidence interval 2.13–14.00); p < 0.0005). Qualitative findings also indicated that clinicians’ perceptions of families’ wellbeing, circumstances, characteristics, engagement with clinicians and anticipated reaction to invitation influenced invitation. Conclusion: We found evidence of selective invitation practices that could bias research findings. Non-invitation and selection bias should be considered, assessed and reported in palliative care studies.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3