Literature DB >> 10609922

An approach to community consultation prior to initiating an emergency research study incorporating a waiver of informed consent.

J M Baren1, J P Anicetti, S Ledesma, M H Biros, M Mahabee-Gittens, R J Lewis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In November 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) enacted rules allowing a narrow exception to the requirement for prospective informed consent when enrolling critically ill patients in clinical research studies of emergency treatments. These rules require that, prior to initiation of the study, the applicable institutional review board (IRB) assess the acceptability of the proposed research study to members of the community in which the research will be conducted. Specifically, the IRB must perform community consultation-a process during which community members learn about the proposed research and communicate their opinions regarding its acceptability to investigators or IRB representatives. The FDA and DHHS rules do not define specific acceptable methods for performing this community consultation. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility and utility of one proposed method for performing such community consultation.
METHODS: Parents of children being seen for minor traumatic injuries in three pediatric EDs were asked to participate in a study regarding informed consent. After consent, an instructor described to the parent a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of phenytoin for the prophylaxis of posttraumatic seizures in children with severe closed head trauma. All parents were then asked whether they would have consented for their own child's participation, if their child had suffered such head injury. The parents were further asked to explain the reason(s) for their responses.
RESULTS: Parents of 227 children (children's mean +/- SD age 8.0 +/- 4.8 years, 57% male) were interviewed. Sixty-six percent of parents (149/227) stated they would give consent for their child's participation. Of the 149 consenting parents, 85% (126/149) cited potential benefit to their child, 72% (107/149) cited potential benefit to other children, and 60% (90/149) cited furthering medical knowledge. Of the 78 nonconsenting parents (34% of total), 54% (42/78) cited fear of adverse effects, 39% (30/78) did not want their child to be a research subject in general, 27% (21/78) believed they needed to discuss participation with family members who were unavailable, and 26% (20/78) stated they were unable to decide unless they were in the actual situation. Parental ethnicity and household income were found to influence the consent decision, while the parent's gender, religion, language, and educational level were not associated with the consent decision.
CONCLUSIONS: Community consultation regarding the acceptability of an emergency research protocol can be obtained via interview techniques in the ED. This methodology may allow investigators to obtain data on opinion from a targeted community for IRB consideration during the review of emergency research studies proposing a waiver of informed consent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10609922     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00135.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  15 in total

1.  Variation of community consultation and public disclosure for a pediatric multi-centered "Exception from Informed Consent" trial.

Authors:  Maija Holsti; Roger Zemek; Jill Baren; Rachel M Stanley; Prashant Mahajan; Cheryl Vance; Kathleen M Brown; Victor Gonzalez; Denise King; Kammy Jacobsen; Kate Shreve; Katrina van de Bruinhorst; Anne Marie Jones; James M Chamberlain
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Informed consent in clinical trials in critical care: experience from the PAC-Man Study.

Authors:  Sheila E Harvey; Diana Elbourne; Joanne Ashcroft; Carys M Jones; Kathryn Rowan
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2006-09-21       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Factors affecting consent in pediatric critical care research.

Authors:  Kusum Menon; Roxanne E Ward; Isabelle Gaboury; Margot Thomas; Ari Joffe; Karen Burns; Deborah Cook
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-11-26       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Stroke patients' preferences and values about emergency research.

Authors:  C E Blixen; G J Agich
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  From comparative effectiveness research to patient-centered outcomes research: integrating emergency care goals, methods, and priorities.

Authors:  Zachary F Meisel; Brendan G Carr; Patrick H Conway
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2012-04-19       Impact factor: 5.721

6.  Research without consent: exception from and waiver of informed consent in resuscitation research.

Authors:  Michelle H Biros
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-07-28       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Community attitudes towards emergency research and exception from informed consent.

Authors:  Michelle H Biros; Corey Sargent; Kathleen Miller
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 5.262

8.  Who will participate in acute stroke trials?

Authors:  S E Kasner; A Del Giudice; S Rosenberg; M Sheen; J M Luciano; B L Cucchiara; S R Messé; L H Sansing; J M Baren
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 9.910

9.  Exception From Informed Consent: How IRB Reviewers Assess Community Consultation and Public Disclosure.

Authors:  Makini Chisolm-Straker; Denise Nassisi; Mohamud R Daya; Jennifer N B Cook; Ilene F Wilets; Cindy Clesca; Lynne D Richardson
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2020-09-29

Review 10.  Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent.

Authors:  Neal W Dickert; Kathleen Metz; Michael D Fetters; Adrianne N Haggins; Deneil K Harney; Candace D Speight; Robert Silbergleit
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 5.221

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.