scholarly journals Recommendations for Implementation of Community Consultation and Public Disclosure Under the Food and Drug Administration’s “Exception From Informed Consent Requirements for Emergency Research”

Circulation ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (16) ◽  
pp. 1855-1863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Halperin ◽  
Norman Paradis ◽  
Vincent Mosesso ◽  
Graham Nichol ◽  
Michael Sayre ◽  
...  
2007 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-455.e4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua G. Salzman ◽  
Ralph J. Frascone ◽  
Bobette K. Godding ◽  
Terry A. Provo ◽  
Elie Gertner

Author(s):  
Neal W. Dickert ◽  
Kathleen Metz ◽  
Michael D. Fetters ◽  
Adrianne N. Haggins ◽  
Deneil K. Harney ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily S. Dix ◽  
Domenic Esposito ◽  
Frances Spinosa ◽  
Nancy Olson ◽  
Stanley Chapman

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole M. DeIorio ◽  
Katie B. McClure ◽  
Maria Nelson ◽  
K. John McConnell ◽  
Terri A. Schmidt

Since 1996, U.S. federal regulations allow research without informed consent to study emergency conditions, if there is currently no satisfactory treatment for the condition, no time to obtain advance consent from the patient or representative, and if there is community involvement through a public disclosure and community consultation process. REB experiences since then are unknown. We surveyed REB chairpersons at the 126 United States medical schools to quantify reviewed protocols and identify attitudes about the rule, to better understand the rule's impact on REBs. Sixty-nine surveys were returned (55%). Fifty-two respondents reviewing human research had heard of the Rule. Forty-eight percent (25/52) had reviewed such a study; 40% of those had rejected at least one. Seventy-eight percent believe the rule protects human subjects, and 88% feel prepared to implement them. REB views differed from public opinion on how best to enact notification and consultation.


Circulation ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 128 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon W. Stephens ◽  
Carolyn Williams ◽  
Randal Gray ◽  
Jeffrey D. Kerby ◽  
Henry E. Wang

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maija Holsti ◽  
Roger Zemek ◽  
Jill Baren ◽  
Rachel M Stanley ◽  
Prashant Mahajan ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 138 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal W Dickert ◽  
Michelle H Biros ◽  
Deneil K Harney ◽  
Elizabeth B Jones ◽  
Andrea R Mitchell ◽  
...  

Introduction: Relatively minimal data exist regarding perspectives of patients (or surrogate decision-makers) after enrollment in clinical trials using the exception from informed consent (EFIC) for emergency research, a regulation essential for resuscitation research. Prior studies have shown that attitudes are generally positive but have enrolled a small proportion of participants and may have been subject to selection bias. Methods: As part of the study protocol, a 10-item paper-and-pencil survey was integrated into the protocol for all sites of the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) trial, a randomized trial of three treatments for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus in pediatric and adult patients. All patients (or surrogate) were given the survey after being asked for consent to continue in ESETT. Primary domains included acceptance of trial enrollment, acceptance of EFIC, and views on which population to include in community consultation. Response items primarily used a 5-point Likert scale. Simple descriptive statistics were tabulated. Results: In total, 317 of 443 patients/surrogates completed the survey (71.6% response). Only 7.3% (23/317) disagreed with the statement “I am glad that my family member/I was included in the ESETT research study,” and 24.9% (79/317) disagreed with being included under EFIC. When asked whom researchers should consult during community consultation, 81.1% (257/317) said patients who have had seizures, 64.7% (205/317) said their family members, and individuals at particular risk for seizures (50.8%) (161/317) were most frequently chosen. Only 26.5% (84/317) felt that members of the general public should be consulted. Conclusions: This is the largest study to date of participants’ perspectives on being enrolled in an EFIC trial. Rates of enrollment acceptance were relatively high; acceptance of EFIC specifically was slightly lower. There is much greater support for consulting individuals with connections to the disease under study than the general public or other groups. These findings further suggest that targeted community consultation may be appropriate and the importance of clear communication with participants after enrollment regarding reasons for EFIC use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document