Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification

Katie B. McClure, Nicole M. Delorio, Mary D. Gunnels, Maria J. Ochsner, Michelle H. Biros, Terri Schmidt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

82 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess public views on emergency exception to informed consent in resuscitation research, public awareness of such studies, and effective methods of community consultation and public notification. Methods: A face-to-face survey was conducted in two academic Level I trauma center emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon and Minnesota from June through August 2001. Results: Five hundred thirty people completed the survey, with an 82% response rate. The mean age of the respondents was 41 years (range 18-95) with a standard deviation of 14.5; 46% were female and 64% white. Most (88%) believed that research subjects should be informed prior to being enrolled, while 49% believed enrolling patients without prior consent in an emergency situation would be acceptable and 70% (369) would not object to be entered into such a study without providing prospective informed consent. Informing and consulting the community as a substitute for patient consent in emergency research was thought to be reasonable by 45% of the respondents. Most respondents would prefer to be informed about a study using emergency exception from informed consent by radio and television media (42%). Two hundred fifty-eight respondents (49%) stated they would attend a community meeting; the less educated were more likely to attend than those with college degrees (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.85, p = 0.008). However, only 5% knew of ongoing studies in their community using emergency exception from informed consent. Conclusions: Most respondents disagreed with foregoing prospective informed consent for research participation even in emergency situations; however, many would be willing to participate in studies using emergency exception from informed consent. Most respondents would not attend community meetings, and would prefer to rely upon the media for information. Very few were aware of emergency exception from informed consent studies in their community. This suggests that current methods of community notification may not be effective.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)352-359
Number of pages8
JournalAcademic Emergency Medicine
Volume10
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2003

Fingerprint

Visitors to Patients
Informed Consent
Resuscitation
Hospital Emergency Service
Emergencies
Referral and Consultation
Research
Research Subjects
Surveys and Questionnaires
Trauma Centers
Television
Radio

Keywords

  • Community exception
  • Emergency exception
  • Informed consent
  • Public opinion
  • Resuscitation research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification. / McClure, Katie B.; Delorio, Nicole M.; Gunnels, Mary D.; Ochsner, Maria J.; Biros, Michelle H.; Schmidt, Terri.

In: Academic Emergency Medicine, Vol. 10, No. 4, 01.04.2003, p. 352-359.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McClure, Katie B. ; Delorio, Nicole M. ; Gunnels, Mary D. ; Ochsner, Maria J. ; Biros, Michelle H. ; Schmidt, Terri. / Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. 352-359.
@article{aa60ec148e3d4e6d8708c00ce3f1a009,
title = "Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification",
abstract = "Objective: To assess public views on emergency exception to informed consent in resuscitation research, public awareness of such studies, and effective methods of community consultation and public notification. Methods: A face-to-face survey was conducted in two academic Level I trauma center emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon and Minnesota from June through August 2001. Results: Five hundred thirty people completed the survey, with an 82{\%} response rate. The mean age of the respondents was 41 years (range 18-95) with a standard deviation of 14.5; 46{\%} were female and 64{\%} white. Most (88{\%}) believed that research subjects should be informed prior to being enrolled, while 49{\%} believed enrolling patients without prior consent in an emergency situation would be acceptable and 70{\%} (369) would not object to be entered into such a study without providing prospective informed consent. Informing and consulting the community as a substitute for patient consent in emergency research was thought to be reasonable by 45{\%} of the respondents. Most respondents would prefer to be informed about a study using emergency exception from informed consent by radio and television media (42{\%}). Two hundred fifty-eight respondents (49{\%}) stated they would attend a community meeting; the less educated were more likely to attend than those with college degrees (OR = 0.53; 95{\%} CI = 0.33 to 0.85, p = 0.008). However, only 5{\%} knew of ongoing studies in their community using emergency exception from informed consent. Conclusions: Most respondents disagreed with foregoing prospective informed consent for research participation even in emergency situations; however, many would be willing to participate in studies using emergency exception from informed consent. Most respondents would not attend community meetings, and would prefer to rely upon the media for information. Very few were aware of emergency exception from informed consent studies in their community. This suggests that current methods of community notification may not be effective.",
keywords = "Community exception, Emergency exception, Informed consent, Public opinion, Resuscitation research",
author = "McClure, {Katie B.} and Delorio, {Nicole M.} and Gunnels, {Mary D.} and Ochsner, {Maria J.} and Biros, {Michelle H.} and Terri Schmidt",
year = "2003",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1197/aemj.10.4.352",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "352--359",
journal = "Academic Emergency Medicine",
issn = "1069-6563",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification

AU - McClure, Katie B.

AU - Delorio, Nicole M.

AU - Gunnels, Mary D.

AU - Ochsner, Maria J.

AU - Biros, Michelle H.

AU - Schmidt, Terri

PY - 2003/4/1

Y1 - 2003/4/1

N2 - Objective: To assess public views on emergency exception to informed consent in resuscitation research, public awareness of such studies, and effective methods of community consultation and public notification. Methods: A face-to-face survey was conducted in two academic Level I trauma center emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon and Minnesota from June through August 2001. Results: Five hundred thirty people completed the survey, with an 82% response rate. The mean age of the respondents was 41 years (range 18-95) with a standard deviation of 14.5; 46% were female and 64% white. Most (88%) believed that research subjects should be informed prior to being enrolled, while 49% believed enrolling patients without prior consent in an emergency situation would be acceptable and 70% (369) would not object to be entered into such a study without providing prospective informed consent. Informing and consulting the community as a substitute for patient consent in emergency research was thought to be reasonable by 45% of the respondents. Most respondents would prefer to be informed about a study using emergency exception from informed consent by radio and television media (42%). Two hundred fifty-eight respondents (49%) stated they would attend a community meeting; the less educated were more likely to attend than those with college degrees (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.85, p = 0.008). However, only 5% knew of ongoing studies in their community using emergency exception from informed consent. Conclusions: Most respondents disagreed with foregoing prospective informed consent for research participation even in emergency situations; however, many would be willing to participate in studies using emergency exception from informed consent. Most respondents would not attend community meetings, and would prefer to rely upon the media for information. Very few were aware of emergency exception from informed consent studies in their community. This suggests that current methods of community notification may not be effective.

AB - Objective: To assess public views on emergency exception to informed consent in resuscitation research, public awareness of such studies, and effective methods of community consultation and public notification. Methods: A face-to-face survey was conducted in two academic Level I trauma center emergency departments (EDs) in Oregon and Minnesota from June through August 2001. Results: Five hundred thirty people completed the survey, with an 82% response rate. The mean age of the respondents was 41 years (range 18-95) with a standard deviation of 14.5; 46% were female and 64% white. Most (88%) believed that research subjects should be informed prior to being enrolled, while 49% believed enrolling patients without prior consent in an emergency situation would be acceptable and 70% (369) would not object to be entered into such a study without providing prospective informed consent. Informing and consulting the community as a substitute for patient consent in emergency research was thought to be reasonable by 45% of the respondents. Most respondents would prefer to be informed about a study using emergency exception from informed consent by radio and television media (42%). Two hundred fifty-eight respondents (49%) stated they would attend a community meeting; the less educated were more likely to attend than those with college degrees (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.85, p = 0.008). However, only 5% knew of ongoing studies in their community using emergency exception from informed consent. Conclusions: Most respondents disagreed with foregoing prospective informed consent for research participation even in emergency situations; however, many would be willing to participate in studies using emergency exception from informed consent. Most respondents would not attend community meetings, and would prefer to rely upon the media for information. Very few were aware of emergency exception from informed consent studies in their community. This suggests that current methods of community notification may not be effective.

KW - Community exception

KW - Emergency exception

KW - Informed consent

KW - Public opinion

KW - Resuscitation research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037387799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037387799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1197/aemj.10.4.352

DO - 10.1197/aemj.10.4.352

M3 - Article

C2 - 12670849

AN - SCOPUS:0037387799

VL - 10

SP - 352

EP - 359

JO - Academic Emergency Medicine

JF - Academic Emergency Medicine

SN - 1069-6563

IS - 4

ER -