Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: a multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings.
ABSTRACT: To assess the range of responses to community consultation efforts conducted within a large network and the impact of different consultation methods on acceptance of exception from informed consent research and understanding of the proposed study.A cognitively pretested survey instrument was administered to 2,612 community consultation participants at 12 U.S. centers participating in a multicenter trial of treatment for acute traumatic brain injury.Survey nested within community consultation for a phase III randomized controlled trial of treatment for acute traumatic brain injury conducted within a multicenter trial network and using exception from informed consent.Adult participants in community consultation events.Community consultation efforts at participating sites.Acceptance of exception from informed consent in general, attitude toward personal exception from informed consent enrollment, and understanding of the study content were assessed. Fifty-four percent of participants agreed exception from informed consent enrollment was acceptable in general in the proposed study; 71% were accepting of personal exception from informed consent enrollment. Participants in interactive versus noninteractive community consultation events were more accepting of exception from informed consent in general (63% vs 49%) and personal exception from informed consent inclusion (77% vs 67%). Interactive community consultation participants had high-level recall of study content significantly more often than noninteractive consultation participants (77% vs 67%). Participants of interactive consultation were more likely to recall possible study benefits (61% vs 45%) but less likely to recall potential risks (56% vs 69%).Interactive community consultation methods were associated with increased acceptance of exception from informed consent and greater overall recall of study information but lower recall of risks. There was also significant variability in exception from informed consent acceptance among different interactive consultation events. These findings have important implications for institutional review board and investigators conducting exception from informed consent research and for community engagement efforts in research more generally.
Project description:Research 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.Interactive interview study.Nested within the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial, a Phase III randomized controlled trial in acute traumatic brain injury.Patients 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.None.Interviews 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).Acceptance 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: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:In 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.Random 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.Random 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.Random 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.
Project description:Background:This article presents the results of a community consultation (CC) process completed in Toronto, Ontario, using a random digit dialling technique, on the attitudes and perceptions of the public toward the use of exception from informed consent when conducting emergency research involving the use of massive blood transfusions. Methods:In 2012, our hospital conducted a CC, using a random digit dialling technique, to elicit the attitudes and perceptions of the public toward the use of an exemption from informed consent for an upcoming clinical trial. A total of 500 participants from high violent crime areas were interviewed as part of this consultation. Results:The response rate for the telephone survey was 54%. Participants indicated a personal acceptance rate of 76%, acceptance of the justification for the exception to consent at 81%, thatthe study would meet the best interest of patients and the community at 81% and that youth (between 15 and 18 years) could be enrolled at 71%. When offered, no participant requested an opt-out wrist band to avoid being enrolled in this study. Discussion:The use of violent crime neighborhoods to locate at risk communities was not effective in identifying the appropriate community of interest for this study. Though only representing a small subpopulation from a large Canadian city, the attitudes noted here is suggestive that Canadians may have a similar level of acceptance as the US based on published studies. However, given the resources needed to undertake this process and that in the end it did not elicit any useful feedback or recommendations for enhancing the safety of participants, the future use of phone surveys as a means of engaging communities should be reconsidered. Level of evidence Level V:This is a retrospective subanalysis of a CC using a randomized phone dialling technique from a site prior to the start of the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios Trial. The CC was not designed specifically for research purposes and as such reflect only a case study from a single center. Trial registration number:Pre-result, NCT01545232.
Project description:The IMMEDIATE (Immediate Myocardial Metabolic Enhancement During Initial Assessment and Treatment in Emergency care) Trial, a randomized controlled double-blind clinical effectiveness trial of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) administered in ambulances in the out-of-hospital setting, used the Exception from Informed Consent Requirements (EFIC) for Emergency Research under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. EFIC requirements include community consultation that typically involves using a variety of communication methods and venues to inform the public of the research and to receive their feedback. Although not the primary purpose of the community consultation process, a common concern to research sponsors, staff, and institutional review boards (IRBs) is whether there will be a sufficient number of participants to justify mounting a study in their community. Information from community consultation regarding the community acceptance might inform this question.We evaluated the utility of telephone survey data done as part of the EFIC process as a way to project the ultimate rate of trial participant enrollment.A telephone survey community consultation process was undertaken in nine communities planning to be IMMEDIATE Trial sites using a representative sampling of the target population in the areas covered by participating emergency medical service (EMS) agencies. Survey respondents were read a description of the planned study and its informed consent approach that included the option for patients to decline participation in the trial while being transported for acute care in an ambulance. Survey respondents were then asked whether they would object to participating in the study. At the conclusion of actual trial enrollment, the Coordinating Center compared the survey results with the actual rates of enrollment at each site.Approximately 200 (range = 200-271) respondents completed the survey in each of the study communities. Of 2079 survey respondents, 68% (range = 61%-75%) said that they would not object to participating in the trial if experiencing a heart attack, and 85% (range = 79%-89%) said that they would allow the study to be done in their community. During actual trial enrollment in the communities, 79% (range = 63%-91%) of the 828 potential participants agreed in the ambulance to have the study drug started and provided informed consent at the hospital, an average of 13 percentage-points higher than projected by the survey (95% confidence interval (CI): 9%-17%), 19% higher on a relative scale (CI: 14%-25%).The survey-based approach to community consultation proved to be an efficient way to obtain representative input from potential clinical trial participants. The survey data generated a relatively good and conservative estimate of the ultimate rate of trial enrollment. This information could be useful to investigators and IRBs in projecting enrollment for clinical trials using EFIC.
Project description:<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 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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Most subjects had positive views of enrollment, and acceptance generally correlated with results of community consultation studies.
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.
Project description:To assess principal investigators' and study coordinators' views and experiences regarding community consultation in a multicenter trial of prehospital treatment for status epilepticus conducted under an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings.Principal investigators and study coordinators at all 17 hubs for the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding community consultation at their site for RAMPART. Major domains included 1) perceived goals of community consultation, 2) experiences with and views of community consultation methods used, 3) interactions with IRB regarding community consultation, and 4) general satisfaction and lessons learned. Descriptive statistics were tabulated for Likert scale data; relevant themes were reported for text-based data.Twenty-eight individuals (16 coordinators and 12 investigators) representing all 17 RAMPART hubs completed the survey. Respondents considered multiple community consultation goals to be important, with least support for the role of community consultation in altering study design. All sites used multiple methods (median = 5). The most widely used, and generally favored, method was attending previously scheduled meetings of existing groups. Respondents expressed frustration with low attendance and responsiveness at open public meetings.Coordinators and investigators in this trial viewed community consultation efforts as successful but reported real challenges generating public interest. Individuals with the condition under study were found to be more engaged and supportive of the trial. Respondents endorsed numerous potential goals of the community consultation process and often combined methods to achieve these goals.
Project description:Objective:Methods to improve informed consent efficiency and effectiveness are needed for pragmatic clinical trials. We compared informed consent using a tablet computer to a paper approach to assess comprehension and satisfaction of patients and clinic staff for a future osteoporosis clinical trial. Methods:Nine community-based practices identified and recruited patients to compare the informed consent processes (tablet vs. paper) in a mock osteoporosis clinical trial. The tablet informed consent included an animation summarizing the trial, complete informed consent document, and questions to assess and reinforce comprehension of the study. Participants were women age ?55 years with ?1 year of alendronate use. We surveyed participants to assess comprehension and satisfaction and office staff for satisfaction and perceived time demands. Results:The nine practices enrolled 33 participants. There was not a significant difference in comprehension between the tablet vs. paper informed consent [mean (SD) tablet: 12.2 (1.0) vs. paper: 11.4 (1.7)]. Office staff preferred the tablet to the paper informed consent for identifying potential study participants (two-sided t-test p = 0.02) despite an increased perceived time spent to complete the tablet process [tablet: 28.3 min (SD 16.3) vs. paper: 19.0 min (SD 6.9); p = 0.08]. Conclusions:Although, there were no significant differences in participant satisfaction and comprehension with the tablet informed consent compared to a paper informed consent, patients and office staff trended towards greater satisfaction with the tablet informed consent. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate the utility of electronic informed consent in pragmatic clinical trials.
Project description:Up to 25% of severely injured patients develop trauma-induced coagulopathy. To study interventions for this vulnerable population for whom consent cannot be obtained easily, the Food and Drug Administration issued regulations for emergency research with an exception from informed consent (ER-EIC). We describe the community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD) process in preparation for an ER-EIC study, namely the Control Of Major Bleeding After Trauma (COMBAT) study.The CC/PD was guided by the four bioethical principles. We used a multimedia approach, including one-way communications (newspaper ads, brochures, television, radio, and web) and two-way communications (interactive in-person presentations at community meetings, printed and online feedback forms) to reach the trials catchment area (Denver County's population: 643,000 and the Denver larger metro area where commuters reside: 2.9 million). Particular attention was given to special-interests groups (eg, Jehovah Witnesses, homeless) and to Spanish-speaking communities (brochures and presentations in Spanish). Opt-out materials were available during on-site presentations or via the COMBAT study website.A total of 227 community organizations were contacted. Brochures were distributed to 11 medical clinics and 3 homeless shelters. The multimedia campaign had the potential to reach an estimated audience of 1.5 million individuals in large metro Denver area, the majority via one-way communication and 1900 in two-way communications. This resource intensive process cost more than $84,000.The CC/PD process is resource-intensive, costly, and complex. Although the multimedia CC/PD reached a large audience, the effectiveness of this process remains elusive. The templates can be helpful to similar ER-EIC studies.