Literature DB >> 19385848

Ethics committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols.

Nicole M Deiorio1, Katie B McClure, Maria Nelson, K John McConnell, Terri A Schmidt.   

Abstract

SINCE 1996, U.S. FEDERAL REGULATIONS allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 19385848     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2007.2.3.23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  6 in total

1.  Variations in the application of exception from informed consent in a multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  Jestin N Carlson; Dana Zive; Denise Griffiths; Karen N Brown; Robert H Schmicker; Heather Herren; George Sopko; Sara DiFiore; Dixie Climer; Caroline Herdeman; Ahamed Idris; Graham Nichol; Henry E Wang
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 5.262

2.  Community consultation for prehospital research: experiences of study coordinators and principal investigators.

Authors:  Neal W Dickert; Prasanthi Govindarajan; Deneil Harney; Robert Silbergleit; Jeremy Sugarman; Kevin P Weinfurt; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 3.077

3.  Emergency medical service providers' attitudes and experiences regarding enrolling patients in clinical research trials.

Authors:  Terri A Schmidt; Maria Nelson; Mohamud Daya; Nicole M DeIorio; Denise Griffiths; Pontine Rosteck
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2009 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 3.077

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

5.  Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: a multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings.

Authors:  Neal W Dickert; Victoria A Mah; Michelle H Biros; Deneil M Harney; Robert Silbergleit; Jeremy Sugarman; Emir Veledar; Kevin P Weinfurt; David W Wright; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 7.598

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.