Mark Duffett1, Karen E Burns2, Michelle E Kho3, François Lauzier4, Maureen O Meade5, Donald M Arnold5, Neill K J Adhikari6, François Lamontagne7, Deborah J Cook5. 1. McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: duffett@hhsc.ca. 2. St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 4. Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada. 5. McMaster Children's Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 6. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reliance on third party consent for patients without decision-making capacity presents unique challenges for critical care research. We compared the attitudes and beliefs of Canadian research ethics boards (REBs) and intensive care unit researchers toward the use of various consent models for a low-risk randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-administered, scenario-based survey. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of eligible REBs (n = 83) and 78% of eligible researchers (n = 124) completed the questionnaire. The REBs were less comfortable endorsing alternative consent models when a substitute decision maker was unavailable, including consent provided by (a) the intensivist involved with the trial (2.0% vs 15.3%; P = .014), (b) the intensivist not involved with the trial (10.0% vs 36.7%; P = .001), (c) 2 physicians (the intensivist and another consultant, neither of whom is involved with the trial) (18.0% vs 54.1%; P < .001), and (d) 2 physicians involved neither with the trial nor the patient's care (10.2% vs 52.0%; P < .001). In similar circumstances, REBs were less comfortable approving both deferred (8.0% vs 43.3%; P < .001) and waived (4.1% vs 22.4%; P = .005) consent. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of scenarios involving low-risk critical care research, REBs were significantly more conservative in approving alternative consent models compared with investigators.
PURPOSE: Reliance on third party consent for patients without decision-making capacity presents unique challenges for critical care research. We compared the attitudes and beliefs of Canadian research ethics boards (REBs) and intensive care unit researchers toward the use of various consent models for a low-risk randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Self-administered, scenario-based survey. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent of eligible REBs (n = 83) and 78% of eligible researchers (n = 124) completed the questionnaire. The REBs were less comfortable endorsing alternative consent models when a substitute decision maker was unavailable, including consent provided by (a) the intensivist involved with the trial (2.0% vs 15.3%; P = .014), (b) the intensivist not involved with the trial (10.0% vs 36.7%; P = .001), (c) 2 physicians (the intensivist and another consultant, neither of whom is involved with the trial) (18.0% vs 54.1%; P < .001), and (d) 2 physicians involved neither with the trial nor the patient's care (10.2% vs 52.0%; P < .001). In similar circumstances, REBs were less comfortable approving both deferred (8.0% vs 43.3%; P < .001) and waived (4.1% vs 22.4%; P = .005) consent. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of scenarios involving low-risk critical care research, REBs were significantly more conservative in approving alternative consent models compared with investigators.
Authors: Niina Kleiber; Krista Tromp; Miriam G Mooij; Suzanne van de Vathorst; Dick Tibboel; Saskia N de Wildt Journal: Paediatr Drugs Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.022
Authors: Nick Daneman; Asgar H Rishu; Wei Xiong; Sean M Bagshaw; Deborah J Cook; Peter Dodek; Richard Hall; Anand Kumar; Francois Lamontagne; Francois Lauzier; John C Marshall; Claudio M Martin; Lauralyn McIntyre; John Muscedere; Steven Reynolds; Henry T Stelfox; Robert A Fowler Journal: Trials Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 2.279
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
Authors: Nick Daneman; Asgar H Rishu; Ruxandra L Pinto; Yaseen M Arabi; Deborah J Cook; Richard Hall; Shay McGuinness; John Muscedere; Rachael Parke; Steven Reynolds; Benjamin Rogers; Yahya Shehabi; Robert A Fowler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jessica Hodson; Christiana Garros; Jodie Jensen; Jonathan P Duff; Gonzalo Garcia Guerra; Ari R Joffe Journal: J Intensive Care Date: 2019-12-16