PURPOSE: Consent for research is a difficult and unpredictable process in pediatric critical care populations. The objectives of this study were to describe consent rates in pediatric critical care research and their association with patient, legal guardian, consent process, and study design-related factors. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study was conducted from 2009 to 2010 in six tertiary care pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Canada with legal guardians of patients who were approached for consent for any ongoing PICU research study. Data were recorded on details of the consent process for all consent encounters. RESULTS: We recorded 271 consent encounters. The overall consent rate was 80.1% (217/271). We observed higher consent rates when the research assistant was introduced by a member of the clinical team prior to approaching the family (89.7 vs. 77.7%; P = 0.04). Legal guardians of cardiac surgery patients were less likely to provide consent than those of all other patients (75.3 vs. 86.0%; P = 0.03). There was no difference in consent rates between therapeutic (117/145, 80.7%) versus non-therapeutic studies (100/126, 79.4%; P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: This study provides future researchers with consent data for determination of recruitment rates, sample sizes, budget estimations, and study timelines. Future pediatric critical care studies should consider incorporating the lower consent rates in cardiac surgery patients and routine introduction of the research assistant to the family by a member of the patient's care team into their study designs. The potential influence of parental factors on consent rates in pediatric critical care studies requires further research.
PURPOSE: Consent for research is a difficult and unpredictable process in pediatric critical care populations. The objectives of this study were to describe consent rates in pediatric critical care research and their association with patient, legal guardian, consent process, and study design-related factors. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study was conducted from 2009 to 2010 in six tertiary care pediatric intensive care units (PICU) in Canada with legal guardians of patients who were approached for consent for any ongoing PICU research study. Data were recorded on details of the consent process for all consent encounters. RESULTS: We recorded 271 consent encounters. The overall consent rate was 80.1% (217/271). We observed higher consent rates when the research assistant was introduced by a member of the clinical team prior to approaching the family (89.7 vs. 77.7%; P = 0.04). Legal guardians of cardiac surgery patients were less likely to provide consent than those of all other patients (75.3 vs. 86.0%; P = 0.03). There was no difference in consent rates between therapeutic (117/145, 80.7%) versus non-therapeutic studies (100/126, 79.4%; P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: This study provides future researchers with consent data for determination of recruitment rates, sample sizes, budget estimations, and study timelines. Future pediatric critical care studies should consider incorporating the lower consent rates in cardiac surgery patients and routine introduction of the research assistant to the family by a member of the patient's care team into their study designs. The potential influence of parental factors on consent rates in pediatric critical care studies requires further research.
Authors: K S Hoehn; G Wernovsky; J Rychik; J W Gaynor; T L Spray; C Feudtner; R M Nelson Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: JoAnne E Natale; Jill G Joseph; Robert K Pretzlaff; Tomas J Silber; Anne-Marie Guerguerian Journal: Dev Neurosci Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Karen Choong; Desmond Bohn; Douglas D Fraser; Isabelle Gaboury; James S Hutchison; Ari R Joffe; Catherine Litalien; Kusum Menon; Patrick McNamara; Roxanne E Ward Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-07-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jacques Lacroix; Paul C Hébert; James S Hutchison; Heather A Hume; Marisa Tucci; Thierry Ducruet; France Gauvin; Jean-Paul Collet; Baruch J Toledano; Pierre Robillard; Ari Joffe; Dominique Biarent; Kathleen Meert; Mark J Peters Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kali A Barrett; Niall D Ferguson; Valerie Athaide; Deborah J Cook; Jan O Friedrich; Ellen McDonald; Ruxandra Pinto; Orla M Smith; James Stevenson; Damon C Scales Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 17.440
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: K E A Burns; L Rizvi; O M Smith; Y Lee; J Lee; M Wang; M Brown; M Parker; A Premji; D Leung; M Hammond Mobilio; L Gotlib-Conn; R Nisenbaum; M Santos; Y Li; S Mehta Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Brian R Clarridge; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Jessica LeBlanc; Rumel S Mahmood; Carie R Kennedy; Bradley D Freeman Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Kristin L McBain; Eric T Payne; Rohit Sharma; Helena Frndova; Nicholas S Abend; Sarah M Sánchez; William B Gallentine; Karen M Cornett; Kendall B Nash; O Carter Snead; Christopher S Parshuram; Jamie S Hutchison; Cecil D Hahn Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.624