STUDY OBJECTIVE: We improve our understanding of the community consultation process for acute neurologic emergency trials conducted under the federal regulations for Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) for emergency research. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using focus groups to collect data from patients with a previous stroke or brain injury and their families and from young men at risk for traumatic brain injury. Discussions were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for major themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Five focus groups, involving 40 participants, were convened. Major themes included the awareness and understanding of key clinical trial concepts, including prominent concerns about placebo and therapeutic misconception; inability to obtain informed consent and acceptable surrogate decision-making; EFIC in emergency research and whether existing regulations are acceptable; specific trial design problems, including comparison to standard of care versus 2 competing active therapies; and community consultation and representation. CONCLUSION: In this study sample, EFIC trials were deemed appropriate and acceptable for acute neurologic emergency research. Education, along with open discussion about basic clinical research concepts, disease- and trial-specific information, and potential surrogate decision-making, was essential to determine the acceptability of an EFIC trial. Approval by institutional review boards was highly regarded as a means of human protection and effective community consultation for such trials. A data repository of information gained from similar qualitative research may help investigators and regulators who wish to plan, conduct, review, and provide oversight for acute neurologic emergency trials under EFIC regulations.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We improve our understanding of the community consultation process for acute neurologic emergency trials conducted under the federal regulations for Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) for emergency research. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using focus groups to collect data from patients with a previous stroke or brain injury and their families and from young men at risk for traumatic brain injury. Discussions were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for major themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Five focus groups, involving 40 participants, were convened. Major themes included the awareness and understanding of key clinical trial concepts, including prominent concerns about placebo and therapeutic misconception; inability to obtain informed consent and acceptable surrogate decision-making; EFIC in emergency research and whether existing regulations are acceptable; specific trial design problems, including comparison to standard of care versus 2 competing active therapies; and community consultation and representation. CONCLUSION: In this study sample, EFIC trials were deemed appropriate and acceptable for acute neurologic emergency research. Education, along with open discussion about basic clinical research concepts, disease- and trial-specific information, and potential surrogate decision-making, was essential to determine the acceptability of an EFIC trial. Approval by institutional review boards was highly regarded as a means of human protection and effective community consultation for such trials. A data repository of information gained from similar qualitative research may help investigators and regulators who wish to plan, conduct, review, and provide oversight for acute neurologic emergency trials under EFIC regulations.
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
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: Patricia E Powers; Karen K Shore; Susan Perez; Dominique Ritley; Nathan Kuppermann; James F Holmes; Leah S Tzimenatos; Hiwote Shawargga; Daniel K Nishijima Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 3.451
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: Jeffrey L Saver; Tudor G Jovin; Wade S Smith; Gregory W Albers; Jean-Claude Baron; Johannes Boltze; Joseph P Broderick; Lisa A Davis; Andrew M Demchuk; Salvatore DeSena; Jens Fiehler; Philip B Gorelick; Werner Hacke; Bill Holt; Reza Jahan; Hui Jing; Pooja Khatri; Chelsea S Kidwell; Kennedy R Lees; Michael H Lev; David S Liebeskind; Marie Luby; Patrick Lyden; J Thomas Megerian; J Mocco; Keith W Muir; Howard A Rowley; Richard M Ruedy; Sean I Savitz; Vitas J Sipelis; Samuel K Shimp; Lawrence R Wechsler; Max Wintermark; Ona Wu; Dileep R Yavagal; Albert J Yoo Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 7.914
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: 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