Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: A multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings

Neal W. Dickert, Victoria A. Mah, Michelle H. Biros, Deneil M. Harney, Robert Silbergleit, Jeremy Sugarman, Emir Veledar, Kevin P. Weinfurt, David W. Wright, Rebecca D. Pentz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:: 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. DESIGN:: 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. SETTING:: 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. SUBJECTS:: Adult participants in community consultation events. INTERVENTIONS:: Community consultation efforts at participating sites. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: 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%). CONCLUSIONS:: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)272-280
Number of pages9
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume42
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Multicenter Studies
Emergencies
Referral and Consultation
Research
Brain Injuries
Research Ethics Committees
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Bioethics
  • Community Consultation
  • Ethics
  • Informed Consent
  • Research In Emergency Settings

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Consulting communities when patients cannot consent : A multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings. / Dickert, Neal W.; Mah, Victoria A.; Biros, Michelle H.; Harney, Deneil M.; Silbergleit, Robert; Sugarman, Jeremy; Veledar, Emir; Weinfurt, Kevin P.; Wright, David W.; Pentz, Rebecca D.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 42, No. 2, 02.2014, p. 272-280.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dickert, NW, Mah, VA, Biros, MH, Harney, DM, Silbergleit, R, Sugarman, J, Veledar, E, Weinfurt, KP, Wright, DW & Pentz, RD 2014, 'Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: A multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings', Critical Care Medicine, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 272-280. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a27759
Dickert, Neal W. ; Mah, Victoria A. ; Biros, Michelle H. ; Harney, Deneil M. ; Silbergleit, Robert ; Sugarman, Jeremy ; Veledar, Emir ; Weinfurt, Kevin P. ; Wright, David W. ; Pentz, Rebecca D. / Consulting communities when patients cannot consent : A multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 272-280.
@article{fd4c309b90a34447b52965c50e798f82,
title = "Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: A multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES:: 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. DESIGN:: 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. SETTING:: 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. SUBJECTS:: Adult participants in community consultation events. INTERVENTIONS:: Community consultation efforts at participating sites. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: 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{\%}). CONCLUSIONS:: 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.",
keywords = "Bioethics, Community Consultation, Ethics, Informed Consent, Research In Emergency Settings",
author = "Dickert, {Neal W.} and Mah, {Victoria A.} and Biros, {Michelle H.} and Harney, {Deneil M.} and Robert Silbergleit and Jeremy Sugarman and Emir Veledar and Weinfurt, {Kevin P.} and Wright, {David W.} and Pentz, {Rebecca D.}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a27759",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "272--280",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consulting communities when patients cannot consent

T2 - A multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings

AU - Dickert, Neal W.

AU - Mah, Victoria A.

AU - Biros, Michelle H.

AU - Harney, Deneil M.

AU - Silbergleit, Robert

AU - Sugarman, Jeremy

AU - Veledar, Emir

AU - Weinfurt, Kevin P.

AU - Wright, David W.

AU - Pentz, Rebecca D.

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - OBJECTIVES:: 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. DESIGN:: 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. SETTING:: 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. SUBJECTS:: Adult participants in community consultation events. INTERVENTIONS:: Community consultation efforts at participating sites. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: 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%). CONCLUSIONS:: 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.

AB - OBJECTIVES:: 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. DESIGN:: 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. SETTING:: 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. SUBJECTS:: Adult participants in community consultation events. INTERVENTIONS:: Community consultation efforts at participating sites. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:: 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%). CONCLUSIONS:: 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.

KW - Bioethics

KW - Community Consultation

KW - Ethics

KW - Informed Consent

KW - Research In Emergency Settings

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893337052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893337052&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a27759

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a27759

M3 - Article

C2 - 24145834

AN - SCOPUS:84893337052

VL - 42

SP - 272

EP - 280

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 2

ER -