Neal W Dickert1,2, Kathleen Metz1, Michael D Fetters3, Adrianne N Haggins4, Deneil K Harney4, Candace D Speight1, Robert Silbergleit4. 1. Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 3. Mixed Methods Program and Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature. METHODS: Scoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories. RESULTS: Among 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two-way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what "communities" to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.
BACKGROUND: Exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature. METHODS: Scoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories. RESULTS: Among 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two-way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what "communities" to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.
Authors: Katie B McClure; Nicole M DeIorio; Mary D Gunnels; Maria J Ochsner; Michelle H Biros; Terri A Schmidt Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Alexandra E Fehr; Victoria M Scicluna; Rebecca D Pentz; Adrianne N Haggins; Neal W Dickert Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: M Smirnoff; I Wilets; D F Ragin; R Adams; J Holohan; R Rhodes; G Winkel; E M Ricci; C Clesca; L D Richardson Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2018-02-16
Authors: Theresa L Chin; Ernest E Moore; Marilyn E Coors; James G Chandler; Arsen Ghasabyan; Jeffrey N Harr; John R Stringham; Christopher R Ramos; Sarah Ammons; Anirban Banerjee; Angela Sauaia Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Eileen M Bulger; Terri A Schmidt; Andrea J Cook; Karen J Brasel; Denise E Griffiths; Peter J Kudenchuk; Daniel Davis; Berit Bardarson; Ahamed H Idris; Tom P Aufderheide Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-27 Impact factor: 5.721
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