Literature DB >> 16264084

Minimal-risk waiver of informed consent and exception from informed consent (Final Rule) studies at institutional review boards nationwide.

Amy A Ernst1, Steven J Weiss, Todd G Nick, Kenneth Iserson, Michelle H Biros.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Federal regulations allow waiver of informed consent for minimal-risk research (waiver). More than minimal-risk emergency research is allowed with an exception from informed consent (EFIC) under specific guidelines called the Final Rule. Performance of research without consent is controversial; however, chances for public health improvements are significant.
OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe the number and demographics of academic medical institutions that have reviewed and approved minimal-risk waiver and EFIC studies; 2) to describe associations between National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding percentile and whether an academic medical institution reviews EFIC studies; and 3) to describe associations between geographic region and review of EFIC studies, and the interaction of region and NIH funding percentile with review of EFIC studies. The hypothesis was that schools with a higher NIH funding percentile (more funding) reviewed more EFIC studies research, and that this effect did not vary based on region.
METHODS: This was an e-mail and telephone survey of all 122 MD-degree-granting medical schools in the continental United States. Descriptive data were collected on the number of schools reviewing and approving EFIC research. Sites were split into those that have reviewed EFIC studies and those that have not. A multivariable logistic regression examined the effects of 1) funding percentile and 2) region (Northeast, North Central, Southeast, and West) on the likelihood of EFIC study reviews at the sites. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were determined.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight of 118 eligible institutional review boards (IRBs) (83%) responded. Ninety-nine percent (97/98) approved waiver studies; 51% (50/98) had reviewed and approved EFIC studies. Academic medical institutions with higher funding percentile were significantly more likely to have reviewed/approved EFIC studies (interaction p = 0.01) in all regions except the Northeast, where higher funding percentile was associated with IRBs significantly less likely to have reviewed/approved EFIC studies (OR 0.25; 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: Almost all medical school IRBs review minimal-risk waiver studies. About half of IRBs at medical schools have reviewed and approved an EFIC study. The higher the NIH funding percentile (more NIH funding), the more likely a site has reviewed EFIC studies, except in the Northeast region.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16264084     DOI: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.06.011

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.  Inclusion of women, minorities, and children in clinical trials: opinions of research ethics board administrators.

Authors:  Holly A Taylor
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Regulatory challenges for the resuscitation outcomes consortium.

Authors:  Samuel A Tisherman; Judy L Powell; Terri A Schmidt; Tom P Aufderheide; Peter J Kudenchuk; Julie Spence; Dixie Climer; Donna Kelly; Angela Marcantonio; Todd Brown; George Sopko; Richard Kerber; Jeremy Sugarman; David Hoyt
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-10-07       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 5.  Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention.

Authors:  Susanne Rebers; Neil K Aaronson; Flora E van Leeuwen; Marjanka K Schmidt
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 2.652

Review 6.  When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review.

Authors:  Sara Jm Laurijssen; Rieke van der Graaf; Wouter B van Dijk; Ewoud Schuit; Rolf Hh Groenwold; Diederick E Grobbee; Martine C de Vries
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.599

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.