Community consultation methods in a study using exception to informed consent

Maria Nelson, Terri Schmidt, Nicole Deiorio, Kenneth (John) McConnell, Denise E. Griffiths, Katie B. McClure

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. The most effective means of community consultation is unknown. We evaluated differences in community opinion elicited by varying means of consultation. Methods. We compared responses with a cross-sectional, standardized survey administered as part of the community consultation for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) hypertonic saline trial. Surveys were obtained from four sources: two sets of random-digit dialing phone surveys, paper surveys from community meetings, and web-based surveys. Results. Three hundred sixty-one usable surveys were obtained: 186 from phone survey 1; 86 from phone survey 2 (using slightly modified wording); 54 from community meetings (8 from open forums; 46 from existing meetings); and 35 from a web site. Demographics were similar between the sets except that the surveys obtained from community meetings had the highest minority representation (63.3% nonwhite). Community meeting respondents were more willing than phone or web respondents to receive experimental treatment for themselves (93.6% vs. 77.5% overall) and for a family member (95.2% vs. 74.9% overall). The web-based survey generated the least feedback and had the most higher-income responders. Conclusions. Responses varied by method of consultation. The open forums were very poorly attended, despite heavy advertising by investigators. Furthermore, attendees at those meetings provided the least objection to proposed research without informed consent. Phone surveys elicited the most objections. We suggest that an efficient method of community consultation is random-digit dialing supplemented with discussion at already scheduled events to target special populations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)417-425
Number of pages9
JournalPrehospital Emergency Care
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2008

Fingerprint

Informed Consent
Referral and Consultation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Health Services Needs and Demand
Resuscitation
Cross-Sectional Studies
Research Personnel
Demography

Keywords

  • Ethics, research
  • Guidelines
  • Informed consent
  • Public opinion
  • U.S. food and drug administration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency

Cite this

Community consultation methods in a study using exception to informed consent. / Nelson, Maria; Schmidt, Terri; Deiorio, Nicole; McConnell, Kenneth (John); Griffiths, Denise E.; McClure, Katie B.

In: Prehospital Emergency Care, Vol. 12, No. 4, 09.2008, p. 417-425.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nelson, Maria ; Schmidt, Terri ; Deiorio, Nicole ; McConnell, Kenneth (John) ; Griffiths, Denise E. ; McClure, Katie B. / Community consultation methods in a study using exception to informed consent. In: Prehospital Emergency Care. 2008 ; Vol. 12, No. 4. pp. 417-425.
@article{d8655133cd5b4440a06d0f7a9d9d4076,
title = "Community consultation methods in a study using exception to informed consent",
abstract = "Objective. The most effective means of community consultation is unknown. We evaluated differences in community opinion elicited by varying means of consultation. Methods. We compared responses with a cross-sectional, standardized survey administered as part of the community consultation for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) hypertonic saline trial. Surveys were obtained from four sources: two sets of random-digit dialing phone surveys, paper surveys from community meetings, and web-based surveys. Results. Three hundred sixty-one usable surveys were obtained: 186 from phone survey 1; 86 from phone survey 2 (using slightly modified wording); 54 from community meetings (8 from open forums; 46 from existing meetings); and 35 from a web site. Demographics were similar between the sets except that the surveys obtained from community meetings had the highest minority representation (63.3{\%} nonwhite). Community meeting respondents were more willing than phone or web respondents to receive experimental treatment for themselves (93.6{\%} vs. 77.5{\%} overall) and for a family member (95.2{\%} vs. 74.9{\%} overall). The web-based survey generated the least feedback and had the most higher-income responders. Conclusions. Responses varied by method of consultation. The open forums were very poorly attended, despite heavy advertising by investigators. Furthermore, attendees at those meetings provided the least objection to proposed research without informed consent. Phone surveys elicited the most objections. We suggest that an efficient method of community consultation is random-digit dialing supplemented with discussion at already scheduled events to target special populations.",
keywords = "Ethics, research, Guidelines, Informed consent, Public opinion, U.S. food and drug administration",
author = "Maria Nelson and Terri Schmidt and Nicole Deiorio and McConnell, {Kenneth (John)} and Griffiths, {Denise E.} and McClure, {Katie B.}",
year = "2008",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1080/10903120802290885",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "417--425",
journal = "Prehospital Emergency Care",
issn = "1090-3127",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community consultation methods in a study using exception to informed consent

AU - Nelson, Maria

AU - Schmidt, Terri

AU - Deiorio, Nicole

AU - McConnell, Kenneth (John)

AU - Griffiths, Denise E.

AU - McClure, Katie B.

PY - 2008/9

Y1 - 2008/9

N2 - Objective. The most effective means of community consultation is unknown. We evaluated differences in community opinion elicited by varying means of consultation. Methods. We compared responses with a cross-sectional, standardized survey administered as part of the community consultation for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) hypertonic saline trial. Surveys were obtained from four sources: two sets of random-digit dialing phone surveys, paper surveys from community meetings, and web-based surveys. Results. Three hundred sixty-one usable surveys were obtained: 186 from phone survey 1; 86 from phone survey 2 (using slightly modified wording); 54 from community meetings (8 from open forums; 46 from existing meetings); and 35 from a web site. Demographics were similar between the sets except that the surveys obtained from community meetings had the highest minority representation (63.3% nonwhite). Community meeting respondents were more willing than phone or web respondents to receive experimental treatment for themselves (93.6% vs. 77.5% overall) and for a family member (95.2% vs. 74.9% overall). The web-based survey generated the least feedback and had the most higher-income responders. Conclusions. Responses varied by method of consultation. The open forums were very poorly attended, despite heavy advertising by investigators. Furthermore, attendees at those meetings provided the least objection to proposed research without informed consent. Phone surveys elicited the most objections. We suggest that an efficient method of community consultation is random-digit dialing supplemented with discussion at already scheduled events to target special populations.

AB - Objective. The most effective means of community consultation is unknown. We evaluated differences in community opinion elicited by varying means of consultation. Methods. We compared responses with a cross-sectional, standardized survey administered as part of the community consultation for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) hypertonic saline trial. Surveys were obtained from four sources: two sets of random-digit dialing phone surveys, paper surveys from community meetings, and web-based surveys. Results. Three hundred sixty-one usable surveys were obtained: 186 from phone survey 1; 86 from phone survey 2 (using slightly modified wording); 54 from community meetings (8 from open forums; 46 from existing meetings); and 35 from a web site. Demographics were similar between the sets except that the surveys obtained from community meetings had the highest minority representation (63.3% nonwhite). Community meeting respondents were more willing than phone or web respondents to receive experimental treatment for themselves (93.6% vs. 77.5% overall) and for a family member (95.2% vs. 74.9% overall). The web-based survey generated the least feedback and had the most higher-income responders. Conclusions. Responses varied by method of consultation. The open forums were very poorly attended, despite heavy advertising by investigators. Furthermore, attendees at those meetings provided the least objection to proposed research without informed consent. Phone surveys elicited the most objections. We suggest that an efficient method of community consultation is random-digit dialing supplemented with discussion at already scheduled events to target special populations.

KW - Ethics, research

KW - Guidelines

KW - Informed consent

KW - Public opinion

KW - U.S. food and drug administration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54049138799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=54049138799&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10903120802290885

DO - 10.1080/10903120802290885

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 417

EP - 425

JO - Prehospital Emergency Care

JF - Prehospital Emergency Care

SN - 1090-3127

IS - 4

ER -