Spontaneous intramural jejunal haematoma: a case report

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Relative solidarity: Conceptualising communal participation in genomic research among potential research participants in a developing Sub-Saharan African setting

Objective As genomic research gathers momentum in sub-Saharan Africa, it has become increasingly important to understand the reasons why individuals wish to participate in this kind of medical research. Against the background of communitarianism conceived as typical of African communities, it is often suggested that individuals consent to participate on the grounds of solidarity and to further the common good. In this paper, we seek to explore this contention by presenting data from focus groups with potential research participants about what would influence their decisions to participate in genomic research. Methods and results These focus groups were conducted as part of a larger qualitative study with a purposively selected group of participants from a community situated in south west Nigeria. We conducted fifteen focus group sessions comprising 50 participants organized by age and sex, namely: 1) adult (>30 years) males, 2) adult females, 3) youth (18–30 years) males, and 4) youth females. A mixed age-group was conducted to probe different views between the age groups. There was discordance and clear division between the adults and youths regarding the decision to participate in genomic research based on commitment to communal values. Adults based their decision to participate on altruism and furthering the common good while youths based their decisions on personal benefits and preferences and also took into account the views and welfare of family members and neighbours. Conclusions This discordance suggests a ‘generational shift’ and we advance a model of ‘relative solidarity’ among the youths, which is different from the communal solidarity model typical of African communitarianism. Our findings suggest the need for a closer look at strategies for implementation of community engagement and informed consent in genomic research in this region, and we recommend further studies to explore this emerging trend

How experience makes a difference: practitioners' views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials

BACKGROUND: In 2008 UK legislation was amended to enable the use of deferred consent for paediatric emergency care (EC) trials in recognition of the practical and ethical difficulties of obtaining prospective consent in an emergency situation. However, ambiguity about how to make deferred consent acceptable to parents, children and practitioners remains. In particular, little is known about practitioners’ views and experiences of seeking deferred consent in this setting. METHODS: As part of a wider study investigating consent methods in paediatric emergency care trials (called CONNECT), a 20 item online questionnaire was sent by email inviting practitioners (doctors and nurses) who were involved in talking with families about children’s and young people’s (aged 0–16 years) participation in UK EC trials. To ensure those with and without experience of deferred consent were included, practitioners were sampled using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling methods. Simple descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data, whilst the constant comparative method was used to analyse qualitative data. Elements of a symbiotic empirical ethics approach was used to integrate empirical evidence and bioethical literature to explore the data and draw practice orientated conclusions. RESULTS: Views on deferred consent differed depending upon whether or not practitioners were experienced in this consent method. Practitioners who had no experience of deferred consent reported negative perceptions of this consent method; these practitioners were concerned about the impact that deferred consent would have upon the parent-practitioner relationship. In contrast, practitioners experienced in deferred consent described how families had been receptive to the consent method, if conducted sensitively and in a time appropriate manner. Experienced practitioners also described how deferred consent had improved recruitment, parental decision-making capacity and parent-practitioner relationships in the emergency care setting. CONCLUSIONS: The views of practitioners with first-hand experience of deferred consent should be considered in the design and ethical review of future paediatric EC trials; the design and ethical review of such trials should not solely be informed by the beliefs of those without experience of using deferred consent. Further research involving parents and children is required to inform practitioner training and normative guidance on the use and appropriateness of deferred consent in emergency settings

Fifteen-minute consultation: An evidence-based approach to research without prior consent (deferred consent) in neonatal and paediatric critical care trials

What do we mean by research without prior consent (deferred consent)? Emergency research with critically unwell children is vital to make sure that the most ill and injured children benefit from evidence-based healthcare.1 Ethical guidance require that consent be sought from parents (or legal representatives) on behalf of their children2 before research is initiated, yet concerns about problems in seeking parents’ consent when their child is critically ill have been a significant barrier to conducting clinical trials.3 ,4 Taking time out to seek informed consent before starting treatment will often be difficult to justify as delaying any intervention in an emergency could diminish a child's chances of recovery. Parents will usually be highly distressed in a critical care situation, and many will struggle to make an informed decision about research in the limited time available. Many countries have legislated to permit variations to informed consent and allow progress in research to develop critical care treatments.5–7 While the details vary, a common feature is that informed consent is not requested before the patient receives the intervention being researched.8 In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) essentially ‘waives’ informed consent, although practitioners must show that they have attempted to contact legal representatives and tried to provide the opportunity to ‘opt out’ of a trial.5 ,9 The FDA's detailed guidance aims to assist researchers in implementing EFIC,10 ,11 although the accompanying public consultation requirements have led to varied practice and costly delays in setting up trialsCATCH was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number 08/13/47). CONNECTwas funded by Wellcome Trust (WT095874MF) and supported by the MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (MR/L004933/1- R/N42)

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials

Background: Alternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC. Methods: Qualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe et al (2016) model for recruitment to trials. Results: We analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC. Conclusion: This study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required