Literature DB >> 16264074

Does the emergency exception from informed consent process protect research subjects?

Nicole M Delorio1, Katie B McClure.   

Abstract

Although subject protection is the cornerstone of medical ethics, when considered in the context of research using emergency exception from informed consent, its success is debatable. The participants of a breakout session at the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussed the issues surrounding subject protection and advanced the following recommendations. 1) There are no outcome measures that define "protection"; therefore, it is not currently known whether or not subjects are protected under the current rules. 2) Care must be taken to protect not only the individual from harm during research but also to protect society from unregulated research in other countries and an inability to appropriately advance medical knowledge. 3) Some surrogate markers/methods of protection whose efficacies are debatable include data safety monitoring board activity, the community consultation and public notification (CC/PN) process, and institutional review board approval. 4) Minimal-risk studies should be held to different standards of protection than those that involve more significant risk to the subject. 5) A handful of studies have been published regarding community consultation and notification, and the majority are case studies. Those that are specifically designed to discover the most successful methods are hindered by a lack of formal outcomes measures and tend to have negative results. 6) Follow-up data from the CC/PN process should be disclosed to the Food and Drug Administration and incorporated into study designs. 7) Focus groups and/or random-digit dialing have been suggested as promising methods for fulfilling the CC/PN requirements. 8) Studies need to be funded and performed that formally investigate the best means of CC/PN. 9) More funding for this research should be a priority in the emergency medicine and critical care communities. More data regarding terminated studies should be made available to the research community. 10) Quantifiable markers of success for CC/PN must be validated so that research may determine the most successful methods. 11) Data regarding subjects' and family members' experiences with exception from informed consent studies need to be obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16264074     DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.07.001

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


  6 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.  A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent.

Authors:  Katie B McClure; Nicole M Delorio; Terri A Schmidt; Gary Chiodo; Paul Gorman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Exploring ethical conflicts in emergency trauma research: the COMBAT (Control of Major Bleeding after Trauma) study experience.

Authors:  Theresa L Chin; Ernest E Moore; Marilyn E Coors; James G Chandler; Arsen Ghasabyan; Jeffrey N Harr; John R Stringham; Christopher R Ramos; Sarah Ammons; Anirban Banerjee; Angela Sauaia
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 3.982

4.  Reasons for nonenrollment in a clinical trial of acute lung injury.

Authors:  Andrea E Glassberg; John M Luce; Michael A Matthay
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2008-08-08       Impact factor: 9.410

5.  Perceived challenges to obtaining informed consent for a time-sensitive emergency department study of pediatric status epilepticus: results of two focus groups.

Authors:  James M Chamberlain; Kathleen Lillis; Cheryl Vance; Kathleen M Brown; Olubunmi Fawumi; Shari Nichols; Colleen O Davis; Tasmeen Singh; Jill M Baren
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 6.  Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness.

Authors:  Nina H Gobat; Micaela Gal; Nick A Francis; Kerenza Hood; Angela Watkins; Jill Turner; Ronald Moore; Steve A R Webb; Christopher C Butler; Alistair Nichol
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-12-29       Impact factor: 2.279

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.