OBJECTIVE: To assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings. METHODS: Principal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.
OBJECTIVE: To assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings. METHODS: Principal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.
Authors: Maria Nelson; Terri A Schmidt; Nicole M DeIorio; K John McConnell; Denise E Griffiths; Katie B McClure Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2008 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 3.077
Authors: Charles Contant; Laurence B McCullough; Lorna Mangus; Claudia Robertson; Alex Valadka; Baruch Brody Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Robert Silbergleit; Valerie Durkalski; Daniel Lowenstein; Robin Conwit; Arthur Pancioli; Yuko Palesch; William Barsan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicole M Deiorio; Katie B McClure; Maria Nelson; K John McConnell; Terri A Schmidt Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Samuel A Tisherman; Judy L Powell; Terri A Schmidt; Tom P Aufderheide; Peter J Kudenchuk; Julie Spence; Dixie Climer; Donna Kelly; Angela Marcantonio; Todd Brown; George Sopko; Richard Kerber; Jeremy Sugarman; David Hoyt Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Patricia E Powers; Karen K Shore; Susan Perez; Dominique Ritley; Nathan Kuppermann; James F Holmes; Leah S Tzimenatos; Hiwote Shawargga; Daniel K Nishijima Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Shannon W Stephens; Carolyn Williams; Randal Gray; Jeffrey D Kerby; Henry E Wang; Patrick L Bosarge Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Neal W Dickert; Kathleen Metz; Michael D Fetters; Adrianne N Haggins; Deneil K Harney; Candace D Speight; Robert Silbergleit Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 5.221
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