Dataset Information

Brain death declaration: Practices and perceptions worldwide.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the practices and perceptions of brain death determination worldwide and analyze the extent and nature of variations among countries.

Methods

An electronic survey was distributed globally to physicians with expertise in neurocritical care, neurology, or related disciplines who would encounter patients at risk of brain death.

Results

Most countries (n = 91, response rate 76%) reported a legal provision (n = 63, 70%) and an institutional protocol (n = 70, 77%) for brain death. Institutional protocols were less common in lower-income countries (2/9 of low [22%], 9/18 lower-middle [50%], 22/26 upper-middle [85%], and 37/38 high-income countries [97%], p < 0.001). Countries with an organized transplant network were more likely to have a brain death provision compared with countries without one (53/64 [83%] vs 6/25 [24%], p < 0.001). Among institutions with a formalized brain death protocol, marked variability occurred in requisite examination findings (n = 37, 53% of respondents deviated from the American Academy of Neurology criteria), apnea testing, necessity and type of ancillary testing (most commonly required test: EEG [n = 37, 53%]), time to declaration, number and qualifications of physicians present, and criteria in children (distinct pediatric criteria: n = 38, 56%).

Conclusions

Substantial differences in perceptions and practices of brain death exist worldwide. The identification of discrepancies, improvement of gaps in medical education, and formalization of protocols in lower-income countries provide first pragmatic steps to reconciling these variations. Whether a harmonized, uniform standard for brain death worldwide can be achieved remains questionable.

SUBMITTER: Wahlster S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4433464 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:With data becoming a centerpiece of modern scientific discovery, data sharing by scientists is now a crucial element of scientific progress. This article aims to provide an in-depth examination of the practices and perceptions of data management, including data storage, data sharing, and data use and reuse by scientists around the world. METHODS:The Usability and Assessment Working Group of DataONE, an NSF-funded environmental cyberinfrastructure project, distributed a survey to a multinational and multidisciplinary sample of scientific researchers in a two-waves approach in 2017-2018. We focused our analysis on examining the differences across age groups, sub-disciplines of science, and sectors of employment. FINDINGS:Most respondents displayed what we describe as high and mediocre risk data practices by storing their data on their personal computer, departmental servers or USB drives. Respondents appeared to be satisfied with short-term storage solutions; however, only half of them are satisfied with available mechanisms for storing data beyond the life of the process. Data sharing and data reuse were viewed positively: over 85% of respondents admitted they would be willing to share their data with others and said they would use data collected by others if it could be easily accessed. A vast majority of respondents felt that the lack of access to data generated by other researchers or institutions was a major impediment to progress in science at large, yet only about a half thought that it restricted their own ability to answer scientific questions. Although attitudes towards data sharing and data use and reuse are mostly positive, practice does not always support data storage, sharing, and future reuse. Assistance through data managers or data librarians, readily available data repositories for both long-term and short-term storage, and educational programs for both awareness and to help engender good data practices are clearly needed.

Project description:The incorporation of data sharing into the research lifecycle is an important part of modern scholarly debate. In this study, the DataONE Usability and Assessment working group addresses two primary goals: To examine the current state of data sharing and reuse perceptions and practices among research scientists as they compare to the 2009/2010 baseline study, and to examine differences in practices and perceptions across age groups, geographic regions, and subject disciplines. We distributed surveys to a multinational sample of scientific researchers at two different time periods (October 2009 to July 2010 and October 2013 to March 2014) to observe current states of data sharing and to see what, if any, changes have occurred in the past 3-4 years. We also looked at differences across age, geographic, and discipline-based groups as they currently exist in the 2013/2014 survey. Results point to increased acceptance of and willingness to engage in data sharing, as well as an increase in actual data sharing behaviors. However, there is also increased perceived risk associated with data sharing, and specific barriers to data sharing persist. There are also differences across age groups, with younger respondents feeling more favorably toward data sharing and reuse, yet making less of their data available than older respondents. Geographic differences exist as well, which can in part be understood in terms of collectivist and individualist cultural differences. An examination of subject disciplines shows that the constraints and enablers of data sharing and reuse manifest differently across disciplines. Implications of these findings include the continued need to build infrastructure that promotes data sharing while recognizing the needs of different research communities. Moving into the future, organizations such as DataONE will continue to assess, monitor, educate, and provide the infrastructure necessary to support such complex grand science challenges.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Scientific research in the 21st century is more data intensive and collaborative than in the past. It is important to study the data practices of researchers--data accessibility, discovery, re-use, preservation and, particularly, data sharing. Data sharing is a valuable part of the scientific method allowing for verification of results and extending research from prior results. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A total of 1329 scientists participated in this survey exploring current data sharing practices and perceptions of the barriers and enablers of data sharing. Scientists do not make their data electronically available to others for various reasons, including insufficient time and lack of funding. Most respondents are satisfied with their current processes for the initial and short-term parts of the data or research lifecycle (collecting their research data; searching for, describing or cataloging, analyzing, and short-term storage of their data) but are not satisfied with long-term data preservation. Many organizations do not provide support to their researchers for data management both in the short- and long-term. If certain conditions are met (such as formal citation and sharing reprints) respondents agree they are willing to share their data. There are also significant differences and approaches in data management practices based on primary funding agency, subject discipline, age, work focus, and world region. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Barriers to effective data sharing and preservation are deeply rooted in the practices and culture of the research process as well as the researchers themselves. New mandates for data management plans from NSF and other federal agencies and world-wide attention to the need to share and preserve data could lead to changes. Large scale programs, such as the NSF-sponsored DataNET (including projects like DataONE) will both bring attention and resources to the issue and make it easier for scientists to apply sound data management principles.

Project description:Despite empirical observations suggesting that practitioners value the use of substitutions during soccer match-play, limited research has sought to substantiate such claims. This study used online surveys to assess the perceptions of practitioners within professional soccer about the use and practices of substitutes. Thirty-three practitioners completed one of two surveys (each requiring both open and closed questions to be answered), depending upon whether their primary role related mostly to tactical ('tactical practitioners'; n = 7) or physical ('physical practitioners'; n = 26) aspects of player/team management. Thematic content analysis of responses identified four higher-order themes: 'impact of substitutions', 'planning and communication', 'player preparation and recovery' and 'regulations'. Eighty-five percent of practitioners believed that substitutes are important in determining success during soccer match-play, with the primary justification being the perceived ability of such players to provide a physical and/or tactical impact. However, contextual factors such as the match situation, timing of introduction, and players undergoing adequate pre-pitch-entry preparation, may be important for realising such aims. Although many practitioners believed that there was a need for substitutes to engage in bespoke non-match-day preparations and recovery strategies that differ from starting players, logistical considerations, such as scarcity of resources, often limit their scope. Notwithstanding, 96% of respondents indicated that substitutes frequently perform extra conditioning sessions to account for deficits in high-speed running loads compared with players exposed to a longer period of match-play. Substitutes' pre-match warm-ups are typically led by team staff, however practitioners reported providing varying levels of input with regards to the practices adopted between kick-off and pitch-entry. Uncertainty exists as to the efficacy of current pre-pitch-entry practices, and 100% of practitioners highlighted 'preparatory strategies' as at least a 'moderately important' direction for future research. This study presents novel insights and highlights areas that are considered future research priorities amongst those working in the field.

Project description:BackgroundCanadians seeking medical cannabis (MC) may encounter difficulties in finding a healthcare provider (HCP) who authorizes their access to it. Barriers that HCPs face in authorizing MC are unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate HCP opinions, knowledge, comfort, and practice in MC prescribing and counseling on recreational cannabis use, and whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected MC prescribing practices.MethodsEligible participants included HCPs (e.g., attending physicians, nurses, pharmacists) in Canada. A questionnaire evaluating their knowledge, comfort, and practice in medical and recreational cannabis was designed based on instruments developed in previous studies. Between April 13th-December 13th 2021, ninety-one healthcare associations were asked to distribute the survey to their members, and an advertisement was placed in the online Canadian Medical Association Journal. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results.ResultsTwenty-four organizations agreed to disseminate the survey and 70 individuals completed it. Of respondents, 71% were attending physicians or medical residents, while the remainder were nurses, pharmacists or other HCPs. Almost none (6%) received training in MC in professional school but 60% did receive other training (e.g., workshops, conferences). Over half (57%) received more questions regarding MC since recreational cannabis was legalized, and 82% reported having patients who use MC. However, 56% felt uncomfortable or ambivalent regarding their knowledge of MC, and 27% were unfamiliar with the requirements for obtaining MC in Canada. The most common symptoms for recommending MC were pain and nausea, whereas the most common conditions for recommending it were cancer and intractable pain. The strongest barrier to authorizing MC was uncertainty in safe and effective dosage and routes of administration. The strongest barrier to recommending or authorizing MC was the lack of research evidence demonstrating its safety and efficacy. During the pandemic, many respondents reported that a greater number of their patients used cannabis to relieve anxiety and depression.ConclusionsOur results suggest that HCPs across Canada who responded to our survey are unfamiliar with topics related to MC. The strongest barriers appear to be lack of clinical research, and uncertainty in safe and effective MC administration. Increasing research, training, and knowledge may help HCPs feel more equipped to make informed treatment/prescribing decisions, which may help to improve access to MC.