Ischemic Stroke Survivors' Opinion Regarding Research Utilizing Exception from Informed Consent

被引:8
|
作者
Kleindorfer, Dawn [1 ]
Lindsell, Christopher J. [1 ]
Alwell, Kathleen [1 ]
Woo, Daniel [1 ]
Flaherty, Matthew L. [1 ]
Eilerman, Jane [1 ]
Khatri, Pooja [1 ]
Adeoye, Opeolu [1 ]
Ferioli, Simona [1 ]
Kissela, Brett M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267 USA
关键词
Acute stroke; Angiography; Brain imaging; Stroke care; Transient ischemic attack; COMMUNITY CONSULTATION; EMERGENCY RESEARCH; TRIALS; REQUIREMENTS; ATTITUDES; AWARENESS;
D O I
10.1159/000328815
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: 'Exception from informed consent for research' (EFIC) is a rigorous procedure regulated by the FDA that requires community assent but allows enrollment without patient or family consent. Recently, several acute stroke trials have explored the use of EFIC to improve enrollment. We obtained ischemic stroke survivors' opinions regarding hypothetical enrollment into a clinical trial at the time of their stroke without personal or proxy consent. Methods: During 2005, 460 ischemic stroke patients (or their proxy) who met case criteria were prospectively interviewed and followed. After 2 years, patients were asked to think back to the time of their stroke and indicate whether they would have wished to be enrolled in an acute stroke research study before individual or proxy consent could be obtained, understanding that consent would be sought as soon as possible thereafter, and they rated how agreeable they would have been to acute stroke research with different levels of invasiveness. Predictors of a positive opinion regarding the hypothetical research were analyzed using logistic regression. Variables included in the model were age, race, sex, education, initial NIHSS, modified Rankin Scale prior to stroke and 30 days after stroke, and proxy versus patient responder. Results: At 2 years after stroke, after excluding patient deaths, missing data or refusals, there were 194 patient/proxy responses included in this analysis. Overall, 72-79% of responses were favorable for chart review or blood draw without consent. The proportions answering agreeably to questions about medications or invasive strategies were smaller (62.9 and 59.8%). Older subjects were less likely to offer an agreeable response regarding use of medications [OR 0.97 per year (95% CI 0.94-0.99)] and invasive procedures [OR 0.97 per year (95% CI 0.94-0.99)]. Nonblacks tended to be more agreeable than blacks to invasive procedures. Men had twice the odds of being agreeable to blood draws than women. Conclusions: We found that the majority of interviewed ischemic stroke patients were agreeable to being enrolled in acute stroke research with exception from informed consent, although the rates of agreement were lower than we expected among a cohort of patients who had already agreed to research. Older subjects, black race, and women were less likely to agree to blood draws or treatment strategies. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:321 / 326
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification
    McClure, KB
    Delorio, NM
    Gunnels, MD
    Ochsner, MJ
    Biros, MH
    Schmidt, TA
    ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2003, 10 (04) : 352 - 359
  • [42] Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: The Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study
    Dickert, Neal W.
    Mah, Victoria A.
    Baren, Jill M.
    Biros, Michelle H.
    Govindarajan, Prasanthi
    Pancioli, Arthur
    Silbergleit, Robert
    Wright, David W.
    Pentz, Rebecca D.
    RESUSCITATION, 2013, 84 (10) : 1416 - 1421
  • [43] Acute Agitation and the Exception From Informed Consent Requirements reply
    Dickert, Neal W.
    Sugarman, Jeremy
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2019, 73 (06) : 692 - 693
  • [44] VARIATION IN INFORMED CONSENT PRACTICE FOR THROMBOLYSIS IN ACUTE ISCHEMIC STROKE
    Zonjee, V. J.
    Slenders, J. P. L.
    De Beer, F.
    Visser, M. C.
    Coutinho, J. M.
    Ter Meulen, B. C.
    Van Schaik, S. M.
    Van den Berg-Vos, R. M.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE, 2020, 15 (1_SUPPL) : 198 - 198
  • [45] Informed consent for thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke - Response
    Bravata, DM
    Rosenbaum, JR
    Concato, J
    Brass, LM
    Kim, N
    Fried, TR
    STROKE, 2005, 36 (03) : 529 - 529
  • [46] Patient and Surrogate Postenrollment Perspectives on Research Using the Exception From Informed Consent: An Integrated Survey
    Scicluna, Victoria M.
    Biros, Michelle
    Harney, Deneil K.
    Jones, Elizabeth B.
    Mitchell, Andrea R.
    Pentz, Rebecca D.
    Silbergleit, Robert
    Speight, Candace D.
    Wright, David W.
    Dickert, Neal W.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2020, 76 (03) : 343 - 349
  • [47] Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure
    Salzman, Joshua G.
    Frascone, Ralph J.
    Godding, Bobette K.
    Provo, Terry A.
    Gertner, Elie
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2007, 50 (04) : 448 - 455
  • [48] Studying Community Consultation in Exception From Informed Consent Trials
    Callaway, Clifton W.
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (02) : 451 - 453
  • [49] Informed consent and the use of gametes and embryos for research: a committee opinion
    Amato, Paula
    Brzyski, Robert
    Braverman, Andrea
    Benward, Jean
    Stein, Andrea
    Steinbock, Bonnie
    Wilder, Bruce
    Lamb, Dolores
    Robertson, John
    Daar, Judith
    Francis, Leslie
    Gibson, Mark
    Rebar, Robert
    Tipton, Sean
    Fisseha, Senait
    Ralston, Steven
    Spillman, Monique
    Reindollar, Richard
    Zoloth, Laurie
    Gates, Elena
    McCullough, Lawrence
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2014, 101 (02) : 332 - 335
  • [50] Randomizing Patients without Consent: Waiver vs Exception from Informed Consent Reply
    Isenberg, Derek L.
    Jacobs, Dorian
    PREHOSPITAL AND DISASTER MEDICINE, 2016, 31 (04) : 458 - 458