Dataset Information

Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Resuscitation research requires an exception from informed consent (EFIC). Despite concerns that patients may find EFIC unacceptable, the views and experiences of patients enrolled in an EFIC study are largely unknown.

Methods

The Patients' Experience in Emergency Research (PEER) study was nested within the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) for pre-hospital treatment of status epilepticus. PEER included 61 EFIC enrollees or their surrogates from 5 sites. Interviews used a structured, interactive guide focusing on acceptance of EFIC enrollment in RAMPART and existing regulatory protections. Simple statistics were generated, and textual data were analyzed for common themes.

Results

24 enrolled patients and 37 surrogates were successfully interviewed. 49/60 (82%) were glad they or their family member were included in RAMPART; 54/57 (95%) felt research on emergency seizure treatment is important. 43/59 (73%) found their inclusion under EFIC acceptable; 10 (17%) found it unacceptable, and 6 (10%) were neutral. There were no statistically significant interactions between enrollment attitudes and demographic characteristics, though there were trends toward lower acceptance among interviewees who were non-white, less educated, or had prior research experience. The most common concerns related to lack of consent prior to RAMPART enrollment. Positive responses related to perceived medical benefits, recognition of the impracticality of consent, and wanting doctors to do what needs to be done in emergencies. Many participants had difficulty understanding the trial and EFIC.

Conclusions

Most subjects had positive views of enrollment, and acceptance generally correlated with results of community consultation studies.

SUBMITTER: Dickert NW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3770787 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study.

Dickert Neal W NW Mah Victoria A VA Baren Jill M JM Biros Michelle H MH Govindarajan Prasanthi P Pancioli Arthur A Silbergleit Robert R Wright David W DW Pentz Rebecca D RD

Resuscitation 20130416 10

<h4>Background</h4>Resuscitation research requires an exception from informed consent (EFIC). Despite concerns that patients may find EFIC unacceptable, the views and experiences of patients enrolled in an EFIC study are largely unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>The Patients' Experience in Emergency Research (PEER) study was nested within the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) for pre-hospital treatment of status epilepticus. PEER included 61 EFIC enrollees or their surrogate ...[more]

PMID: 23603291

Similar Datasets

Project description:Research investigating the resuscitation and management of unstable trauma patients is necessary to improve care and save lives. Because informed consent for research is impossible in emergencies, the Federal Drug Administration has established an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) Policy that mandates "community consultation" as a means of protecting patient autonomy. We hypothesized that the trauma community represents a heterogeneous population whose attitudes regarding EFIC and willingness to participate in emergency research are influenced by status as a patient, family, or geographic community member.In the context of an upcoming trial, trauma patients as well as family and community members were asked to rank statements regarding EFIC and willingness to participate in emergency research using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Higher total scores reflected a more positive attitude regarding EFIC (range, 4-20; neutral = 12) and willingness (range, 21-105, neutral = 63). The influence of demographics, education, and interpersonal violence were evaluated by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests (p < 0.05).Overall, the 309 participants (trauma patients, n = 172; family, n = 73; community, n = 64) were positive about EFIC (median, 16; interquartile range, [IQR], 14-18) and demonstrated high willingness scores (median, 82; IQR, 76-88.5). EFIC and willingness were not influenced by age, sex, race, or education. Victims of interpersonal violence and their family members had lower EFIC scores than those with other mechanisms (median [IQR], 16 [14-18] vs. 16 [13-16]; p = 0.04) but similar willingness. Although EFIC scores were similar between groups, trauma patients had significantly lower willingness than family (median [IQR], 74 [68-77] vs. 77 [70-85]; p = 0.03) or community members (median [IQR], 76 [70-84]; p = 0.01).Trauma patients, families, and the geographic community expressed a high degree of support for EFIC and willingness to participate in emergency research, although support was influenced by injury mechanism and group status. Consultation efforts for emergency research should extend beyond the geographic community to include trauma victims and their families.Epidemiologic, level III.

Project description:ObjectiveResearch in acute illness often requires an exception from informed consent. Few studies have assessed the views of patients enrolled in exception from informed consent trials. This study was designed to assess the views of patients and their surrogates of exception from informed consent enrollment within the context of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent for traumatic brain injury.DesignInteractive interview study.SettingNested within the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial, a Phase III randomized controlled trial in acute traumatic brain injury.SubjectsPatients and surrogates (for patients incapable of being interviewed) enrolled in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury under exception from informed consent at 12 sites.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsInterviews focused on respondents' acceptance of exception from informed consent enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury, use of placebo and randomization, understanding of major study elements, and views regarding regulatory protections. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed; textual data were analyzed thematically. Eighty-five individuals were interviewed. Eighty-four percent had positive attitudes toward Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury inclusion. Seventy-eight percent found their inclusion under exception from informed consent acceptable, and 72% found use of exception from informed consent in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury acceptable in general. Only two respondents clearly disagreed with both personal and general exception from informed consent enrollment. The most common concerns (26%) related to absence of consent. Eighty percent and 92% were accepting of placebo use and randomization, respectively. Although there were few black respondents (n = 11), they were less accepting of personal exception from informed consent enrollment than white respondents (55% vs 83%; p = 0.0494).ConclusionsAcceptance of exception from informed consent in this placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent was high and exceeded acceptance among community consultation participants. Exception from informed consent enrollment appears generally consistent with patients' preferences.

Project description:ObjectiveTelemedicine networks are beginning to provide an avenue for conducting emergency medicine research, but using telemedicine to recruit participants for clinical trials has not been validated. The goal of this consent study was to determine whether patient comprehension of telemedicine-enabled research informed consent is noninferior to standard face-to-face (F2F) research informed consent.MethodsA prospective, open-label randomized controlled trial was performed in a 60,000-visit Midwestern academic emergency department (ED) to test whether telemedicine-enabled research informed consent provided noninferior comprehension compared with standard consent. This study was conducted as part of a parent clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of 0.12% oral chlorhexidine gluconate in preventing hospital-acquired pneumonia among adult ED patients with expected hospital admission. Prior to being recruited into the study, potential participants were randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio to consent by telemedicine versus standard F2F consent. Telemedicine connectivity was provided using a commercially available interface (REACH platform, Vidyo Inc.) to an emergency physician located in another part of the ED. Comprehension of research consent (primary outcome) was measured using the modified quality of informed consent (QuIC) instrument, a validated tool for measuring research informed consent comprehension. Parent trial accrual rate and qualitative survey data were secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 131 patients were randomized (n = 64, telemedicine), and 101 QuIC surveys were completed. Comprehension of research informed consent using telemedicine was not inferior to F2F consent (QuIC scores 74.4 ± 8.1 vs. 74.4 ± 6.9 on a 100-point scale, p = 0.999). Subjective understanding of consent (p = 0.194) and parent trial study accrual rates (56% vs. 69%, p = 0.142) were similar.ConclusionTelemedicine is noninferior to F2F consent for delivering research informed consent, with no detected differences in comprehension and patient-reported understanding. This consent study will inform design of future telemedicine-enabled clinical trials.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created the exception from informed consent (EFIC) pathway in 1996 to allow some emergency trials to enroll patients without informed consent. To protect individual autonomy and preserve public trust, the FDA requires that EFIC trial investigators consult with community members before a trial may begin.ObjectivesTo analyze data from surveys conducted as part of community consultation ahead of EFIC trials and assess levels of public approval.Data sourcesAll trials granted an EFIC must submit documentation of compliance with EFIC regulations to a publicly available docket at the FDA. Submissions between November 1, 1996, and October 23, 2017, were reviewed.Study selectionTrials with survey data were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted between January 2018 and June 2018 and were analyzed between June 2018 and August 2018. The quality and validity of data were assessed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A random-effects metaregression was used to assess the association of demographic characteristics with EFIC approval.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcome was EFIC approval.ResultsThe FDA docket contained 15 958 pages of material with survey data for 42 448 individuals submitted by 27 trials. Public approval of EFIC varied by question type, with more people willing to approve initiation of EFIC trials in their community (86.5%) than personal enrollment (73.0%), enrollment of a family member (68.6%), or the principle of enrollment without consent (58.4%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). In the United States, African American individuals made up 29.3% of those enrolled in EFIC trials that reported data on race (5064 of 17 302) but only 16.7% of those surveyed as part of community consultation. In the United States and Canada, men made up 42.9% of the surveyed population but 65.6% of those eventually enrolled in EFIC trials (29 961 of 45 694). Groups surveyed with higher proportions of African American and male respondents had lower rates of EFIC approval.Conclusions and relevancePublic approval of EFIC trials varied by question type and by the respondents' reported race and sex. The demographic characteristics of those surveyed did not match the demographic characteristics of EFIC enrollees. The FDA could strengthen community consultation by standardizing survey instruments and reporting, requiring broader inclusion of African American and male respondents, clarifying the function of surveys in the development and modification of trial protocols, and building more public consensus around the acceptable use of EFIC.

Project description:ImportanceException From Informed Consent (EFIC) research requires community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Traditional methods of conducting CC and PD are slow, expensive, and labor intensive.ObjectiveTo describe the feasibility and reach of a novel interactive, media-based approach to CC and PD and to identify the similarities and differences between trial sites in website views, survey responses, online community forum attendance, and opt-out requests.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study analyzed the CC and PD campaigns conducted for the TAP trial (Evaluation of BE1116 in Patients With Traumatic Injury and Acute Major Bleeding to Improve Survival), an EFIC trial of the early administration of prothrombin complex concentrate in patients with trauma. The CC and PD campaigns consisted of social media advertisements, linked websites, community surveys, and online community forums. These activities were coordinated from a central site and approved by a central institutional review board. This study focused on the first 52 of 91 TAP trial sites (level I trauma centers) in the US to have completed their CC and PD campaigns. Community members in the catchment areas of the participating trauma centers were targeted. Data analysis was conducted between October 2023 and February 2024.ExposureSocial media advertisements, surveys, and online community meetings conducted as part of the CC and PD campaign for the TAP trial.Main outcomes and measuresSocial media campaign reach and engagement, web page views, survey results, online community forum attendance, and opt-out requests.ResultsFifty-two trial sites were approved for participant enrollment. Social media advertisements were displayed 92 million times, reaching 11.8 million individuals. The median (IQR) number of people reached in each location was 210 317 (172 068-276 968). Site-specific websites were viewed 144 197 times (median [IQR] viewings per site, 2984 [1267-4038]). A total of 17 206 fully or partly completed surveys were received, and survey respondents had a median (IQR) age of 40.1 (15-65) years and included 10 444 females (60.7%). Overall, 60.6% survey respondents said they would want to be entered into the trial even if they could not give consent, 87.7% agreed that emergency care research was necessary, and 88.0% agreed that the TAP trial should be conducted in their community. Online community forums were attended by a median (IQR) number of 38 (20-63) people. Four opt-out requests were received.Conclusions and relevanceThe interactive media-based approach to CC and PD for the ongoing TAP trial showed the feasibility and benefits of executing an efficient, coordinated, centrally run series of locally branded and geographically targeted CC and PD campaigns for a large EFIC study.

Project description:ObjectivesWith increased focus on early resuscitation methods following injury to improve patient outcomes, studies are employing exception from informed consent (EFIC) enrollment. Few studies have assessed patients' opinions following participation in an EFIC study, and none have been conducted within the realm of traumatic hemorrhage. We surveyed those patients and surrogates previously enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial to clarify their opinions related to consent and emergency research.MethodsTelephone calls were made between January-June 2019 to all patients who were enrolled under EFIC in the PAMPer study at the Pittsburgh site (169 of the 501 total patients enrolled, May 2014-Oct 2017) and their surrogates. Questions gauging approval of EFIC enrollment were asked before discussion of PAMPer trial outcomes, after disclosure of positive outcomes, and after a hypothetical negative trial outcome was proposed.ResultsOf the total 647 telephone calls made, ninety-three interviews, reflecting 70 of 169 patient enrollments, were conducted. This included 13 in which only the patient was interviewed, 23 in which the patient and a surrogate were interviewed, and 34 in which only a surrogate was interviewed. Nearly half (48.4%) of respondents did not recall their personal or family member enrollment in the study. No patients or surrogates recalled hearing about the study through community consultation or being aware of opt out procedures. Patients and surrogates were glad they were enrolled (90.3%), agreed with EFIC use for their personal enrollment (88.17%), and agreed with the general use of EFIC for the PAMPer study (81.7%). Disclosure of the true positive PAMPer study outcome resulted in a significant increase in opinions regarding personal enrollment, EFIC for personal enrollment, and EFIC for general enrollment (all p < 0.001). Disclosure of a hypothetical neutral or negative study outcome resulted in significant decreases in opinions regarding EFIC for personal enrollment (p = 0.003) and EFIC for general enrollment (p < 0.001).ConclusionsClinical trial participants with traumatic hemorrhagic shock enrolled with EFIC, and surrogates of such participants, are generally accepting of EFIC. The results of the trial in which EFIC was utilized significantly affected patient and surrogate agreement with personal and general EFIC enrollment.

Dataset Information

Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets