Maija Holsti1, Roger Zemek2, Jill Baren3, Rachel M Stanley4, Prashant Mahajan5, Cheryl Vance6, Kathleen M Brown7, Victor Gonzalez8, Denise King9, Kammy Jacobsen10, Kate Shreve7, Katrina van de Bruinhorst11, Anne Marie Jones11, James M Chamberlain7. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Maija.holsti@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 6. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 7. Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 8. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 9. The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD, USA. 10. Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 11. University of Texas, Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The US federal regulation "Exception from Informed Consent for Emergency Research," 21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24, permits emergency research without informed consent under limited conditions. Additional safeguards to protect human subjects include requirements for community consultation and public disclosure prior to starting the research. Because the regulations are vague about these requirements, Institutional Review Boards determine the adequacy of these activities at a local level. Thus, there is potential for broad interpretation and practice variation. AIM: To describe the variation of community consultation and public disclosure activities approved by Institutional Review Boards, and the effectiveness of this process for a multi-center, Exception from Informed Consent, pediatric status epilepticus clinical research trial. METHODS: Community consultation and public disclosure activities were analyzed for each of the 15 participating sites. Surveys were conducted with participants enrolled in the status epilepticus trial to assess the effectiveness of public disclosure dissemination prior to study enrollment. RESULTS: Every Institutional Review Board, among the 15 participating sites, had a varied interpretation of Exception from Informed Consent regulations for community consultation and public disclosure activities. Institutional Review Boards required various combinations of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and meetings for community consultation, and news releases, mailings, and public service announcements for public disclosure. At least 4335 patients received information about the study from these efforts. In all, 158 chose to be included in the "Opt Out" list. Of the 304 participants who were enrolled under Exception from Informed Consent, 12 (5%) had heard about the study through community consultation or public disclosure activities. The activities reaching the highest number of participants were surveys and focus groups associated with existing meetings. Public disclosure activities were more efficient and cost-effective if they were part of an in-hospital resource for patients and families. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in Institutional Review Boards' interpretations of the federal regulations for community consultation and public disclosure. One of the goals of community consultation and public disclosure efforts for emergency research is to provide community members an opportunity to opt out of Exception from Informed Consent research; however, rarely do patients or their legally authorized representatives report having learned about a study prior to enrollment.
BACKGROUND: The US federal regulation "Exception from Informed Consent for Emergency Research," 21 Code of Federal Regulations 50.24, permits emergency research without informed consent under limited conditions. Additional safeguards to protect human subjects include requirements for community consultation and public disclosure prior to starting the research. Because the regulations are vague about these requirements, Institutional Review Boards determine the adequacy of these activities at a local level. Thus, there is potential for broad interpretation and practice variation. AIM: To describe the variation of community consultation and public disclosure activities approved by Institutional Review Boards, and the effectiveness of this process for a multi-center, Exception from Informed Consent, pediatric status epilepticus clinical research trial. METHODS: Community consultation and public disclosure activities were analyzed for each of the 15 participating sites. Surveys were conducted with participants enrolled in the status epilepticus trial to assess the effectiveness of public disclosure dissemination prior to study enrollment. RESULTS: Every Institutional Review Board, among the 15 participating sites, had a varied interpretation of Exception from Informed Consent regulations for community consultation and public disclosure activities. Institutional Review Boards required various combinations of focus groups, interviews, surveys, and meetings for community consultation, and news releases, mailings, and public service announcements for public disclosure. At least 4335 patients received information about the study from these efforts. In all, 158 chose to be included in the "Opt Out" list. Of the 304 participants who were enrolled under Exception from Informed Consent, 12 (5%) had heard about the study through community consultation or public disclosure activities. The activities reaching the highest number of participants were surveys and focus groups associated with existing meetings. Public disclosure activities were more efficient and cost-effective if they were part of an in-hospital resource for patients and families. CONCLUSION: There is substantial variation in Institutional Review Boards' interpretations of the federal regulations for community consultation and public disclosure. One of the goals of community consultation and public disclosure efforts for emergency research is to provide community members an opportunity to opt out of Exception from Informed Consent research; however, rarely do patients or their legally authorized representatives report having learned about a study prior to enrollment.
Authors: Joshua N Goldstein; Kate E Delaney; Andrea J Pelletier; Jonathan Fisher; Phillip G Blanc; Mark Halsey; Daniel J Pallin; Carlos A Camargo Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Carrie A Sims; Joshua A Isserman; Daniel Holena; Latha Mary Sundaram; Nikolai Tolstoy; Sarah Greer; Seema Sonnad; Jose Pascual; Patrick Reilly Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.313
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: Jestin N Carlson; Dana Zive; Denise Griffiths; Karen N Brown; Robert H Schmicker; Heather Herren; George Sopko; Sara DiFiore; Dixie Climer; Caroline Herdeman; Ahamed Idris; Graham Nichol; Henry E Wang Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: John A Harvin; Jeanette M Podbielski; Laura E Vincent; Mike K Liang; Lillian S Kao; Charles E Wade; John B Holcomb Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 2.192
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: Jeremy Furyk; Kris McBain-Rigg; Bronia Renison; Kerrianne Watt; Richard Franklin; Theophilus I Emeto; Robin A Ray; Franz E Babl; Stuart Dalziel Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.652