Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research. Methods We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented. Conclusions Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes

Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent

BackgroundException from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature.MethodsScoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories.ResultsAmong 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two‐way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what “communities” to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy.ConclusionsMultiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170817/1/acem14264_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170817/2/acem14264.pd