PURPOSE: Studies into the preferences of patients and relatives regarding informed consent for intensive care unit (ICU) research are ongoing. We investigated the impact of a study's invasiveness on the choice of who should give consent and on the modalities of informed consent. METHODS: At ICU discharge, randomized pairs of patients and relatives were asked to answer a questionnaire about informed consent for research. One group received a vignette of a noninvasive study; the other, of an invasive study. Each study comprised two scenarios, featuring either a conscious or unconscious patient. Multivariate models assessed independent factors related to their preferences. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients (40 %) and 125 relatives (68 %) responded. The invasiveness of a study had no impact on which people were chosen to give consent. This increased the desire to get more than one person to give consent and decreased the acceptance of deferred or two-step consent. Up to 31 % of both patients and relatives chose people other than the patient himself to give consent, even when the patient was conscious. A range of 3 to 17 % of the respondents reported that they would accept a waiving of consent. Younger respondents and individuals feeling coerced into study participation wanted to be the decision makers. CONCLUSIONS: Study invasiveness had no impact on patients' and relatives' preferences about who should give consent. Many patients and relatives were reluctant to give consent alone. Deferred and two-step consent were less acceptable for the invasive study. Further work should investigate whether sharing the burden of informed consent with a second person facilitates participation in ICU research.
PURPOSE: Studies into the preferences of patients and relatives regarding informed consent for intensive care unit (ICU) research are ongoing. We investigated the impact of a study's invasiveness on the choice of who should give consent and on the modalities of informed consent. METHODS: At ICU discharge, randomized pairs of patients and relatives were asked to answer a questionnaire about informed consent for research. One group received a vignette of a noninvasive study; the other, of an invasive study. Each study comprised two scenarios, featuring either a conscious or unconscious patient. Multivariate models assessed independent factors related to their preferences. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients (40 %) and 125 relatives (68 %) responded. The invasiveness of a study had no impact on which people were chosen to give consent. This increased the desire to get more than one person to give consent and decreased the acceptance of deferred or two-step consent. Up to 31 % of both patients and relatives chose people other than the patient himself to give consent, even when the patient was conscious. A range of 3 to 17 % of the respondents reported that they would accept a waiving of consent. Younger respondents and individuals feeling coerced into study participation wanted to be the decision makers. CONCLUSIONS: Study invasiveness had no impact on patients' and relatives' preferences about who should give consent. Many patients and relatives were reluctant to give consent alone. Deferred and two-step consent were less acceptable for the invasive study. Further work should investigate whether sharing the burden of informed consent with a second person facilitates participation in ICU research.
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: 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: Ellen Iverson; Aaron Celious; Carie R Kennedy; Erica Shehane; Alexander Eastman; Victoria Warren; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian Clarridge; Bradley D Freeman Journal: Chest Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Terri A Schmidt; David Salo; Jason A Hughes; Jean T Abbott; Joel M Geiderman; Catherine X Johnson; Katie B McClure; Mary Pat McKay; Junaid A Razzak; Raquel M Schears; Robert C Solomon Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Elie Azoulay; Giuseppe Citerio; Jan Bakker; Matteo Bassetti; Dominique Benoit; Maurizio Cecconi; J Randall Curtis; Glenn Hernandez; Margaret Herridge; Samir Jaber; Michael Joannidis; Laurent Papazian; Mark Peters; Pierre Singer; Martin Smith; Marcio Soares; Antoni Torres; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-François Timsit Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-01-24 Impact factor: 17.440
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