PURPOSE: To examine the attitudes and preferences of surrogate decision makers (SDMs) regarding their involvement in the consent to research process for ICU patients. METHODS: We presented 136 SDMs of critically ill patients in five ICUs with four hypothetical research scenarios: baseline interventional study of aplacebo controlled RCT; study with higher risk of treatment complication; study comparing two accepted treatments; study with shorter enrolment window. For each we asked SDMs if they would want to be involved in the consent to research decision, and to rate the acceptability of their comfort with, and their sense of burden with their involvement. Participants were screened for symptoms of anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: For the baseline scenario, most SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making (90 %; 95 % CI 84-95 %); responses varied little across study permutations. The majority considered their involvement to be acceptable (85 %; 95 % CI 77-90 %), whereas, a small minority rated it as being unacceptable (2 %; 95 % CI 1-6 %). Many were comfortable with being involved (50 %; 95 % CI 41-59 %), but the number decreased when risk of harm was higher (34 %; 95 % CI 26-43 %) or enrolment window was shorter (41 %; 95 % CI 33-50 %). A majority (62 %) reported symptoms of anxiety and many (38 %) had symptoms of depression. CONCLUSION: Most of the interviewed SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making for critically ill and incapable loved ones. Variability existed, however, in their desire to be involved when decisions were time-sensitive or perceived risk was greater.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To examine the attitudes and preferences of surrogate decision makers (SDMs) regarding their involvement in the consent to research process for ICU patients. METHODS: We presented 136 SDMs of critically illpatients in five ICUs with four hypothetical research scenarios: baseline interventional study of a placebo controlled RCT; study with higher risk of treatment complication; study comparing two accepted treatments; study with shorter enrolment window. For each we asked SDMs if they would want to be involved in the consent to research decision, and to rate the acceptability of their comfort with, and their sense of burden with their involvement. Participants were screened for symptoms of anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: For the baseline scenario, most SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making (90 %; 95 % CI 84-95 %); responses varied little across study permutations. The majority considered their involvement to be acceptable (85 %; 95 % CI 77-90 %), whereas, a small minority rated it as being unacceptable (2 %; 95 % CI 1-6 %). Many were comfortable with being involved (50 %; 95 % CI 41-59 %), but the number decreased when risk of harm was higher (34 %; 95 % CI 26-43 %) or enrolment window was shorter (41 %; 95 % CI 33-50 %). A majority (62 %) reported symptoms of anxiety and many (38 %) had symptoms of depression. CONCLUSION: Most of the interviewed SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making for critically ill and incapable loved ones. Variability existed, however, in their desire to be involved when decisions were time-sensitive or perceived risk was greater.
Authors: Sangeeta Mehta; Friederike Quittnat Pelletier; Maedean Brown; Cheryl Ethier; David Wells; Lisa Burry; Rod MacDonald Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-11-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: John M Luce; Deborah J Cook; Thomas R Martin; Derek C Angus; Homer A Boushey; J Randall Curtis; John E Heffner; Paul N Lanken; Mitchell M Levy; Paula Y Polite; Graeme M Rocker; Robert D Truog Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: E Etchells; P Darzins; M Silberfeld; P A Singer; J McKenny; G Naglie; M Katz; G H Guyatt; D W Molloy; D Strang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: F Pochard; E Azoulay; S Chevret; F Lemaire; P Hubert; P Canoui; M Grassin; R Zittoun; J R le Gall; J F Dhainaut; B Schlemmer Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jennifer L McAdam; Kathleen A Dracup; Douglas B White; Dorothy K Fontaine; Kathleen A Puntillo Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Anne M Lachiewicz; Felicia N Williams; Shannon S Carson; Jessica M Trexler; Carrie A Nielsen; David van Duin; David J Weber; Shannon D Williams; Samuel W Jones; Bruce A Cairns Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Zhe Kang Law; Jason P Appleton; Polly Scutt; Ian Roberts; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Timothy J England; David J Werring; Thompson Robinson; Kailash Krishnan; Robert A Dineen; Ann Charlotte Laska; Philippe A Lyrer; Juan Jose Egea-Guerrero; Michal Karlinski; Hanne Christensen; Christine Roffe; Daniel Bereczki; Serefnur Ozturk; Jegan Thanabalan; Ronan Collins; Maia Beridze; Alfonso Ciccone; Lelia Duley; Angela Shone; Philip M Bath; Nikola Sprigg Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 7.914
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: C J Evans; E Yorganci; P Lewis; J Koffman; K Stone; I Tunnard; B Wee; W Bernal; M Hotopf; I J Higginson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Jane Topolovec-Vranic; Marlene Santos; Andrew J Baker; Orla M Smith; Karen E A Burns Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 2.409