Michelle H Biros1, Corey Sargent, Kathleen Miller. 1. University of Minnesota, Department of Emergency Medicine, 717 Delaware Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55415, United States. Biros001@umn.Edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine public attitudes towards emergency research, exception from informed consent (EFIC) and a specific proposed clinical trial using EFIC. METHODS: As part of a planned community consultation activity, a survey was conducted at a popular public venue. Participants answered demographic questions and then were asked their opinions on specifically described consent circumstances in emergency research, including the proposed EFIC trial. Multiple logistic and linear regression were used to determine respondent characteristics associated with specific attitudes. RESULTS: 1901 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents supported emergency research (88%) and the concept of surrogate consent by a legally authorized representative (78%). The concept of EFIC was less well supported (35%) but the application of EFIC was more accepted, especially when EFIC was applied to the respondent themselves (51%). The community believed the proposed EFIC study was acceptable (82%); a minority had concerns but most were related to patient safety and not to EFIC. Respondents with less education and lower incomes were less likely to express opinions about the consent and research concepts described. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency research and the proposed EFIC trial is supported in this community. The concept of EFIC is less well supported but is more acceptable when a specific trial is described or when respondents consider EFIC for themselves. Specific respondent characteristics are associated with attitudes about research; this can assist in development of meaningful community consultation activities.
OBJECTIVE: To determine public attitudes towards emergency research, exception from informed consent (EFIC) and a specific proposed clinical trial using EFIC. METHODS: As part of a planned community consultation activity, a survey was conducted at a popular public venue. Participants answered demographic questions and then were asked their opinions on specifically described consent circumstances in emergency research, including the proposed EFIC trial. Multiple logistic and linear regression were used to determine respondent characteristics associated with specific attitudes. RESULTS: 1901 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents supported emergency research (88%) and the concept of surrogate consent by a legally authorized representative (78%). The concept of EFIC was less well supported (35%) but the application of EFIC was more accepted, especially when EFIC was applied to the respondent themselves (51%). The community believed the proposed EFIC study was acceptable (82%); a minority had concerns but most were related to patient safety and not to EFIC. Respondents with less education and lower incomes were less likely to express opinions about the consent and research concepts described. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency research and the proposed EFIC trial is supported in this community. The concept of EFIC is less well supported but is more acceptable when a specific trial is described or when respondents consider EFIC for themselves. Specific respondent characteristics are associated with attitudes about research; this can assist in development of meaningful community consultation activities.
Authors: Katie B McClure; Nicole M DeIorio; Mary D Gunnels; Maria J Ochsner; Michelle H Biros; Terri A Schmidt Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jenice N Longfield; Michael J Morris; Kimberly A Moran; John F Kragh; Rick Wolf; Toney W Baskin Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 7.598
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
Authors: Joni R Beshansky; Patricia R Sheehan; Kenneth J Klima; Nira Hadar; Ellen M Vickery; Harry P Selker Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Carrie A Sims; Joshua A Isserman; Daniel Holena; Latha Mary Sundaram; Nikolai Tolstoy; Sarah Greer; Seema Sonnad; Jose Pascual; Patrick Reilly Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Louisa W Whitesides; Jill M Baren; Michelle H Biros; Ross J Fleischman; Prasanthi R Govindarajan; Elizabeth B Jones; Arthur M Pancioli; Rebecca D Pentz; Victoria M Scicluna; David W Wright; Neal W Dickert Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Neal W Dickert; Victoria M Scicluna; Jill M Baren; Michelle H Biros; Ross J Fleischman; Prasanthi R Govindarajan; Elizabeth B Jones; Arthur M Pancioli; David W Wright; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Neal W Dickert; David Wendler; Chandan M Devireddy; Sara F Goldkind; Yi-An Ko; Candace D Speight; Scott Yh Kim Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Neal W Dickert; Victoria A Mah; Jill M Baren; Michelle H Biros; Prasanthi Govindarajan; Arthur Pancioli; Robert Silbergleit; David W Wright; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Maria J Nelson; Nicole M Deiorio; Terri A Schmidt; Dana M Zive; Denise Griffiths; Craig D Newgard Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 5.262
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
Authors: Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826