Studying community consultation in exception from informed consent trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Callaway CW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4117650 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Studying community consultation in exception from informed consent trials.
Critical care medicine 20140201 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundException from informed consent (EFIC) allows clinician scientists to perform much needed emergency research. Obtaining this exception, however, requires many meetings with community groups for consultation, which can make the process time-consuming and expensive. We aim to determine the impact of using social media in lieu of some community meetings in an effort to obtain an EFIC.Materials and methodsAn economic analysis of four randomized clinical trials was performed. Costs were conservatively estimated using personnel costs, social media costs, and adjusted to 2016 US dollars. People were considered reached if they attended a community meeting or were directed to the study website by social media and spent ≥1 min.ResultsThe Early Whole Blood study required 14 meetings, reached 272 people, and cost $8260 ($30/person reached). The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios study required 14 meetings, reached 260 people, and cost $7479 overall ($29/person reached). The Prehospital Tranexamic Acid Use for Traumatic Brain Injury study required 12 meetings, reached 198 people, and cost $6340 ($32/person reached). Only the damage control laparotomy trial utilized social media in lieu of some community meetings. The damage control laparotomy trial required six meetings at which 137 people were reached. The $1000 social media campaign reached 229 people. The cost was $3977 overall and $11/person reached.ConclusionsIncluding a social media campaign during the EFIC process increased the number of potential patients reached and reduced total and per person costs reached costs. Obtaining an EFIC for future emergency clinical trials may be facilitated by the inclusion of a social media campaign.
| S-EPMC6291833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The US Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services outline regulations allowing an exception from informed consent (EFIC) for research conducted in an emergency setting. Acute care clinical trials using EFIC must include community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD) activities. We describe our experience using social media to facilitate the CC/PD process in two trauma resuscitation clinical trials.We conducted local CC/PD activities for two multicenter trauma clinical trials, Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios (PROPPR) and Prehospital Tranexamic Acid Use for Traumatic Brain Injury (ROC-TXA). As part of the CC/PD process, we developed research study advertisements using the social media Web site Facebook. The Facebook advertisements directed users to a regional study Web site that contained trial information. We targeted the advertisements to specific demographic users, in specific geographic areas. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics.During the study periods, the PROPPR Facebook advertisement was displayed 5,001,520 times (12 displays per target population) with 374 individuals selecting the advertisement. The ROC-TXA Facebook advertisement was displayed 3,806,448 times (8 per target population) with 790 individuals selecting the advertisement. Respondents to both Facebook advertisements were mostly male (52.6%), with the highest proportion between the ages 15 years and 24 years (28.2%). Collectively, 26.9% of individuals that clicked on the Facebook advertisement spent more than 3 minutes on the study Web site (3-49 minutes). Commonly accessed Web pages were "contact us" (PROPPR, 5.5%; ROC-TXA, 7.7%), "study-specific FAQs" (PROPPR, 2.4%; ROC-TXA, 6.7%), and "opt out of research" (PROPPR, 2.5%; ROC-TXA, 3.8%). Of 51 total individuals viewing the opt out of research information (PROPPR, 19; ROC-TXA, 32), time spent on that specific page was modest (PROPPR, 62 seconds; ROC-TXA, 55 seconds), with no individuals requesting to opt out of either study participation.In clinical trauma trials using EFIC, social media may provide a viable option for facilitating the CC/PD process.
| S-EPMC4874849 | biostudies-other
Project description:Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) regulations detail specific circumstances in which Institutional Review Boards (IRB) can approve studies where obtaining informed consent is not possible prior to subject enrollment. To better understand how IRB members evaluate community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD) processes and results, semi-structured interviews of EFIC-experienced IRB members were conducted and analyzed using thematic analysis. Interviews with 11 IRB members revealed similar approaches to reviewing EFIC studies. Most use summaries of CC activities to determine community members' attitudes; none reported using specific criteria nor recalled any CC reviews that resulted in modifications to or denials of EFIC studies. Most interviewees thought metrics based on Community VOICES's domains (feasibility, participant selection, quality of communication, community perceptions, investigator/IRB perceptions) would be helpful. IRB members had similar experiences and concerns about reviewing EFIC studies. Development of metrics to assess CC processes may be useful to IRBs reviewing EFIC studies.
| S-EPMC7859882 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6659147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimDescribe community consultation and surrogate consent rates for two Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) - before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe PEARL study (2016-2018) randomized OOHCA patients without ST-elevation to early cardiac catheterization or not. Community consultation included flyers, radio announcements, newspaper advertisements, mailings, and in-person surveys at basketball games and ED waiting rooms. The PROTECT trial (2021-present) randomizes OOHCA survivors to prophylactic ceftriaxone or placebo; the community consultation plan during the pandemic included city council presentations, social media posts, outpatient flyers, but no in-person encounters. Demographics for PROTECT community consultation were compared to PEARL and INTCAR registry data, with p-value < 0.05 considered significant.ResultsPEARL surveyed 1,362 adults, including 64 % ≥60 years old, 96 % high school graduates or beyond; research acceptance rate was 92 % for the community and 76 % for personal level. PROTECT initially obtained 221 surveys from electronic media - including fewer males (28 % vs 72 %,p < 0.001) and those > 60 years old (14 % vs 53 %;p < 0.001) compared to INTCAR. These differences prompted a revised community consultation plan, targeting 79 adult in-patients with cardiac disease which better matched PEARL and INTCAR data: the majority were ≥ 60 years old (66 %) and male (54 %). Both PEARL and PROTECT enrolled more patients using surrogate consent vs EFIC (57 %, 61 %), including 71 % as remote electronic consents during PROTECT.ConclusionsCommunity consultation for EFIC studies changed with the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in different demographic patterns. We describe effective adaptations to community consultation and surrogate consent during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC9581796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundException 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.MethodsScoping 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsMultiple 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.
| S-EPMC8523587 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4111088 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimTo explore perspectives of families in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) about an emergency interventional trial on peri-arrest bolus epinephrine for acute hypotension using Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC).MethodsWe performed face-to-face interviews with families whose children were hospitalized in the PICU. A research team member provided an educational presentation about the planned trial and administered a survey with open- and closed-ended items. Analyses included descriptive statistics for quantitative data and thematic analysis for qualitative data.ResultsSixty-seven participants contributed to 60 survey responses (53 individuals and 7 families for whom 2 family members participated). Most participants answered favorably toward the planned trial: 55/58 (95%) reported that the trial seemed "somewhat" or "very important"; 52/57 (91%) felt the use of EFIC was "somewhat" or "completely acceptable"; and 43/58 (74%) said they would be "somewhat" or "very likely" to allow their child to participate. Five themes emerged supporting participation in the planned trial: 1) trust in the clinical team; 2) familiarity with the study intervention (epinephrine); 3) study protocol being similar to standard care; 4) informed consent during an emergency was not feasible; and 5) importance of research. Barriers to potential participation included requests for additional time to decide about participating and misconceptions about study elements, especially eligibility.ConclusionsFamilies of PICU patients generally supported plans for an emergency interventional trial using EFIC. Future inpatient EFIC studies may benefit from highlighting the themes identified here in their educational materials.
| S-EPMC9852782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectiveIn 1996, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services enacted rules allowing a narrow exception from informed consent for critically ill patients enrolled in emergency research. These include requirements for community consultation prior to trial implementation. Previous studies have noted difficulty in engaging the community. We seek to describe the experience with random dialing surveys as a tool for community consultation across 5 metropolitan regions in the United States.MethodsRandom dialing surveys were used as part of the community consultation for an out-of-hospital clinical trial sponsored by the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium. The survey method was designed to obtain a representative sample of the community according to population demographics and geography. Logistics of survey administration, role of the survey in community consultation, and survey results by population demographics are discussed.ResultsRandom dialing surveys were conducted in 5 of 8 US Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium sites. Overall, 70% to 79% of respondents indicated they would be willing to be enrolled in this study. Support for the inclusion of children (aged 15 to 18 years) ranged from 52% to 71%. Respondents aged 18 to 34 years were more willing to participate in the trial than older age groups. Women and racial minorities were less likely to favor the inclusion of minors.ConclusionRandom dialing surveys provide an additional tool to engage the community and obtain a sample of the opinion of the population about research conducted under the emergency exception from informed consent regulations. Similar results were obtained across 5 diverse communities in the United States.
| S-EPMC3005614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEmergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research.MethodsThe PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings.ResultsDuring the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public.ConclusionThe PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.
| S-EPMC11512686 | biostudies-literature