Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original article
Protecting study participants in emergency research: is community consultation before trial commencement enough?
  1. Blair Henry1,
  2. Adic Perez2,
  3. Sandy Trpcic3,
  4. Sandro Rizoli3,4,
  5. Barto Nascimento4,5
  1. 1 Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  2. 2 Department of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Critical Care Medicine, Toronto, Canada
  3. 3 Trauma & Acute Care, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Canada
  4. 4 Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  5. 5 Department of General Surgery, Trauma, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Blair Henry, Ethics Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Room H2 39, 2075 Bayview Ave., Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada; blair.henry{at}sunnybrook.ca

Abstract

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.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors contributed equally to this project. BH was the primary author, and all others were involved equally in the review and editing process. All authors have reviewed and agree on the final version being submitted.

  • Funding Canadian Attitudes towards Research using EFIC. The contracted work of conducting the community consultation process in Canada was funded by the study sponsor of the clinical trial: The University of Texas Health Sciences Centre, Houston. The research involved in the execution of this manuscript did not receive external funding and was fully sponsored by the hospital programs.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Research Ethics Board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.