Literature DB >> 23345569

A study of consent for participation in a non-therapeutic study in the pediatric intensive care population.

Kusum Menon1, Roxanne Ward.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To document the legal guardian-related barriers to consent procurement, and their stated reasons for non-participation in a paediatric critical care research study. STUDY
DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Legal guardians of children who participated in a multicentre study on adrenal insufficiency in paediatric critical illness. Data were collected on all consent encounters in the main study.
METHODS: Screening data, reasons for consent not being obtained, paediatric risk of mortality (illness severity) scores and age were collected on all 1707 patients eligible for participation in the Adrenal Insufficiency Study.
RESULTS: The main barriers to approaching legal guardians for consent were lack of availability of the legal guardians (321/1707) and language barriers (84/1707). Legal guardians of 917 patients were approached with an overall consent rate of 42% (range 14-56% across the seven sites). 81% of the 528 legal guardians who declined consent provided an unsolicited reason for refusal. The three most commonly stated reasons were: being overwhelmed (117/429), not wanting anything else done to their child (63/429) and not wanting an additional medication (53/429). In addition, 14.2% cited research-related concerns as the reason for their non-participation.
CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to consent procurement in a non-therapeutic paediatric critical care study appear to occur at many levels with lack of availability of legal guardians, and legal guardians feeling overwhelmed, being the most commonly recorded reasons. Further research into the impact of these findings on the validity and generalisability of the results of such studies is necessary prior to the development and study of future consent models.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Children; Informed Consent; Minors/Parental Consent; Research Ethics; Research on Special Populations

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23345569     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2012-101075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  12 in total

1.  Paediatric patient family engagement with clinical research at a tertiary care paediatric hospital.

Authors:  Carson Gill; Mark J Ansermino; Shubhayan Sanatani; Kishore Mulpuri; Quynh Doan
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.253

Review 2.  Ethics of drug research in the pediatric intensive care unit.

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

3.  Biobanking in the Pediatric Critical Care Setting: Adolescent/Young Adult Perspectives.

Authors:  Erin D Paquette; Sabrina F Derrington; Avani Shukla; Neha Sinha; Sarah Oswald; Lauren Sorce; Kelly N Michelson
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  The Family Communication Study: A randomized trial of prospective pediatric palliative care consultation, study methodology and perceptions of participation burden.

Authors:  Helene Starks; Ardith Doorenbos; Taryn Lindhorst; Erica Bourget; Eugene Aisenberg; Natalie Oman; Tessa Rue; J Randall Curtis; Ross Hays
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  Informed consent in paediatric critical care research--a South African perspective.

Authors:  Brenda M Morrow; Andrew C Argent; Sharon Kling
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Parental opinions regarding an opt-out consent process for inpatient pediatric prospective observational research in the US.

Authors:  Danielle M Fernandes; Allison P Roland; Marilyn C Morris
Journal:  Pragmat Obs Res       Date:  2017-01-19

7.  A qualitative feasibility study to inform a randomised controlled trial of fluid bolus therapy in septic shock.

Authors:  Caitlin B O'Hara; Ruth R Canter; Paul R Mouncey; Anjali Carter; Nicola Jones; Simon Nadel; Mark J Peters; Mark D Lyttle; David A Harrison; Kathryn M Rowan; David Inwald; Kerry Woolfall
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 8.  Ethical Challenges in Infant Feeding Research.

Authors:  Colin Binns; Mi Kyung Lee; Masaharu Kagawa
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 5.717

9.  Contributions of a survey and retrospective cohort study to the planning of a randomised controlled trial of corticosteroids in the treatment of paediatric septic shock.

Authors:  Anna Liu; Kusum Menon
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Understanding parents' decision-making on participation in clinical trials in children's heart surgery: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Nigel E Drury; Julie C Menzies; Clare J Taylor; Timothy J Jones; Anna C Lavis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.