Institutional Review Boards' Assessment of Local Context: A Mixed Methods Study.

The nature of the review of local context by institutional review boards (IRBs) is vague. Requirements for single IRB review of multicenter trials create a need to better understand interpretation and implementation of local-context review and how to best implement such reviews centrally. We sought a pragmatic understanding of IRB local-context review by exploring stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions. Semistructured interviews with 26 IRB members and staff members, institutional officials, and investigators were integrated with 80 surveys of similar stakeholders and analyzed with qualitative theme-based text analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. Stakeholders described what they considered to be local context, the value of local-context review, and key processes used to implement review of local context in general and for emergency research conducted with an exception from informed consent. Concerns and potential advantages of centralized review of local context were expressed. Variability in perspectives suggests that local-context review is not a discrete process, which presents opportunities for defining pathways for single IRB review.

A Narrative Review of the Rationale for Conducting Neonatal Emergency Studies with a Waived or Deferred Consent Approach.

Emergency research studies are high-stakes studies that are usually performed on the sickest patients, where many patients or guardians have no opportunity to provide full informed consent prior to participation. Many emergency studies self-select healthier patients who can be informed ahead of time about the study process. Unfortunately, results from such participants may not be informative for the future care of sicker patients. This inevitably creates waste and perpetuates uninformed care and continued harm to future patients. The waiver or deferred consent process is an alternative model that may be used to enroll sick patients who are unable to give prospective consent to participate in a study. However, this process generates vastly different stakeholder views which have the potential to create irreversible impediments to research and knowledge. In studies involving newborn infants, consent must be sought from a parent or guardian, and this adds another layer of complexity to already fraught situations if the infant is very sick. In this manuscript, we discuss reasons why consent waiver or deferred consent processes are vital for some types of neonatal research, especially those occurring at and around the time of birth. We provide a framework for conducting neonatal emergency research under consent waiver that will ensure the patient's best interests without compromising ethical, beneficial, and informative knowledge acquisition to improve the future care of sick newborn infants.

"Is There Anything Else You Would Like to Add?": The Ethics of (Not) Addressing Research Participants' Top Concerns in Public Health Emergency Health Research.

When conducting interviews or focus groups, researchers often end with a simple question; "Is there anything else you would like to add?" This article takes responses to this question provided by participants in a study of "West Africans' Perceptions of Ebola research" as its point of departure. A number of participants in that study accepted the invitation to add on to their interview at its end with details of suffering from the sequelae of Ebola in their communities, and criticisms of state social abandonment. Some explicitly asked the researcher to ensure the suffering of Ebola survivors would be recognized at the international level. These closing words exceeded the objectives of the study within which they emerged. This was a study focused on lived experiences and decision-making to participate in Ebola research during or after the 2013-16 West Africa Ebola outbreak. The study aimed to inform the ethical conduct of research in future public health emergencies. What to do, then, in the face of these participants' entreaties to the interviewer for action to address Ebola survivors' suffering and social abandonment? Can and should the public health emergency or qualitative researcher better anticipate such requests? Where participants' expressed concerns and hopes for the impact of a study exceed its intended scope and the researchers' original intentions, what is at stake ethically in how we respond to those entreaties as researchers? This paper offers reflections on these questions. In doing so, our intention is to open up a space for further consideration and debate on the ethics of how researchers respond to unanticipated requests made to them in the course of research projects, to leverage their power and privilege to advance local priorities.

Exception from informed consent for biomedical research in emergency settings: A study from Jordan.

BACKGROUND: Research conduction in emergency settings is of paramount importance to promote knowledge and experiences related to treating acutely ill patients. However, the complexity of situations creates a considerable ethical challenge facing researchers who basically deal with emergent cases. This study aimed to determine attitudes of healthcare providers (HCPs) towards exception from informed consent (EFIC) and enrollment willingness in emergency research in Jordan. METHODS: A quantitative research with face-to-face questionnaire was conducted by an interviewer during 6-month period in 2019. Survey measures included items related to EFIC policy and overall willingness of HCPs to participate or support their family members' participation in emergency research. RESULTS: A total of 151 HCPs in the emergency departments (EDs) in Jordan was recruited. Positive attitude toward emergency research dominated among participants; about 21.9% of participants reported previous experience in the conduction of emergency research and 12.3% had related publications. Regarding EFIC policy, there was a general consensus of disagreement to most of the examined items. There was a trend for little support of EFIC policy when questioned about the enrollment of family members or public in emergency research, however, the application of EFIC was accepted for self-enrollment of respondents in emergency research. No significant differences (P = 0.37), among participants from different disciplines, were reported regarding the attitudes towards EFIC items or willingness to enroll in emergency research. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, HCPs reported an overall positive support to emergency research despite a consensus of disagreement related to EFIC terms. Therefore, it is recommended to pursue future studies to compare well-informed subjects; recruited from well-developed institutions in regard to emergency research potentials; with the present basic attitudinal surveillance in order to dissipate the effect of such confounder and to get better insight of the actual attitudes related to emergency research and EFIC. In addition, efficient multidisciplinary communication channels between researchers and policy makers can lather the way to collaborative research with simultaneous innovative delivery of quality emergency care.

An Approach to Reviewing Local Context for Exception from Informed Consent Trials Using a Single IRB.

In the context of emergency research, researchers can ask the institutional review board (IRB) to waive the regulatory requirement that individuals provide informed consent when enrolling in research studies. A requirement of the waiver of informed consent is that the reviewing IRB must review and approve a community consultation and public disclosure plan. It is critical that an IRB serving as the single IRB (sIRB) for multisite research be thoroughly versed in the local context concerns for each participating site to determine whether the site's community is being adequately consulted about the research in which individuals will be enrolled under an exception to the informed consent requirement. We designed an sIRB review model for evaluating site-specific community consultation plans that included a local evaluation and feedback step, and we piloted the model with a four-site, pediatric exception from informed consent (EFIC) clinical trial. We identified three key roles for the model: the sIRB, the investigators, and the representative of the institution's human research protection program (HRPP). We successfully collected the information and local input needed to evaluate each site's community consultation plan and applied the information to a thorough IRB review, despite the geographic distance between the study site and the sIRB.

Understanding Exception from Informed Consent in Planned Emergency Research.

Many of the current accepted treatment practices provided to patients in the first critical hour after a traumatic injury, stroke, or cardiac arrest have not been rigorously tested in clinical research trials. The inability to obtain informed consent is often a barrier to research in emergency, time-sensitive situations in which the patient is not able to provide informed consent nor is their family member immediately available to provide consent on behalf of the patient. Planned emergency research, often with exception from informed consent, is a type of research study that involves a patient with a life-threatening medical condition that requires urgent interventions, wherein the current treatments may be unproven or suboptimal, and who, because of their current condition, is unable to provide informed consent. This article summarizes the necessary components for using exception from informed consent in planned emergency research. Understanding the research design, particularly research processes specific to time-critical emergency situations, will ensure that the care provided by stretcher-side emergency nurses will result in optimal patient outcomes and is an integral aspect of emergency nursing practice.

Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial.

OBJECTIVES: With increased focus on early resuscitation methods following injury to improve patient outcomes, studies are employing exception from informed consent (EFIC) enrollment. Few studies have assessed patients' opinions following participation in an EFIC study, and none have been conducted within the realm of traumatic hemorrhage. We surveyed those patients and surrogates previously enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) Trial to clarify their opinions related to consent and emergency research. METHODS: Telephone calls were made between January-June 2019 to all patients who were enrolled under EFIC in the PAMPer study at the Pittsburgh site (169 of the 501 total patients enrolled, May 2014-Oct 2017) and their surrogates. Questions gauging approval of EFIC enrollment were asked before discussion of PAMPer trial outcomes, after disclosure of positive outcomes, and after a hypothetical negative trial outcome was proposed. RESULTS: Of the total 647 telephone calls made, ninety-three interviews, reflecting 70 of 169 patient enrollments, were conducted. This included 13 in which only the patient was interviewed, 23 in which the patient and a surrogate were interviewed, and 34 in which only a surrogate was interviewed. Nearly half (48.4%) of respondents did not recall their personal or family member enrollment in the study. No patients or surrogates recalled hearing about the study through community consultation or being aware of opt out procedures. Patients and surrogates were glad they were enrolled (90.3%), agreed with EFIC use for their personal enrollment (88.17%), and agreed with the general use of EFIC for the PAMPer study (81.7%). Disclosure of the true positive PAMPer study outcome resulted in a significant increase in opinions regarding personal enrollment, EFIC for personal enrollment, and EFIC for general enrollment (all p < 0.001). Disclosure of a hypothetical neutral or negative study outcome resulted in significant decreases in opinions regarding EFIC for personal enrollment (p = 0.003) and EFIC for general enrollment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial participants with traumatic hemorrhagic shock enrolled with EFIC, and surrogates of such participants, are generally accepting of EFIC. The results of the trial in which EFIC was utilized significantly affected patient and surrogate agreement with personal and general EFIC enrollment.

Regulatory flexibility for COVID-19 research.

Clinical research is critical to combatting COVID-19, but regulatory requirements for human subjects protection may sometimes pose a challenge in pandemic circumstances. Although regulators have offered some helpful guidance for research during the pandemic, we identify further compliance challenges regarding institutional review board (IRB) review and approval, informed consent, emergency research, and research involving incarcerated people. Our proposals for regulatory flexibility in these areas seek to satisfy the goals of protecting participants and promoting the development of high-quality evidence to improve patient care. These recommendations may have relevance beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to enhance the efficiency of research oversight and participant protection more broadly.

Uncertainty in times of medical emergency: Knowledge gaps and structural ignorance during the Brazilian Zika crisis.

Uncertainty was a defining feature of the Brazilian Zika crisis of 2015-2016. The cluster of cases of neonatal microcephaly detected in the country's northeast in the second half of 2015, and the possibility that a new virus transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes was responsible for this new syndrome, created a deep sense of shock and confusion in Brazil and around the world. When in February 2016 the WHO declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), it noted that it did so on the basis of what was not known about the virus and its pathogenic potential. To better understand the role that non-knowledge played in the unfolding of the Brazilian Zika crisis we differentiate between three different kinds of uncertainty: global health uncertainty, public health uncertainty, and clinical uncertainty. While these three forms of uncertainty were difficult to disentangle in the early weeks of the crisis, very soon each one began to trace a distinct trajectory. Global health uncertainty centered on the question of the causative link between Zika virus infection and congenital malformations, and was declared resolved by the time the PHEIC was lifted in November 2016. Public health and clinical uncertainty, in contrast, persisted over a longer period of time and did, in some important ways, become entrenched. This taxonomy of uncertainties allows us to explore the systematic nonproduction of knowledge in times of medical emergency, and suggests structural limitations in the framework of "emergency research" that global health institutions have developed to deal with unexpected threats.

Exploration of the ethical review criteria and management of COVID-19 Emergency Research / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective@#Conduct comprehensive analysis of the regulatory requirement of ethical review regarding to the response of public health emergency, illustrate particular ethical review and ethical administration strategies for COVID-19 Emergency Research.@*Methods@#Theoretical discussion, case study and interpretation of international guidelines were adopted to explore challenges and possible best practices for ethical review of such research.@*Results@#The ethical review of COVID-19 emergency research should comply with regulatory requirement in general, combined with contextual background.@*Conclusions@#The ethical review approval criteria of COVID-19 emergency research should take into full consideration of its urgency to make sure efficient and high quality initial review, meanwhile, more attention should be paid on continuing ethical review and ethical consultation during the whole life-circle of COVID-19 Emergency Research.

Review article: A primer for clinical researchers in the emergency department: Part X. Understanding economic evaluation alongside emergency medicine research.

In this series we address research topics in emergency medicine. While traditionally there was an almost exclusive focus on the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions in emergency research, analysis of the costs and the societal impact of different approaches and pathways have become increasingly important. In this paper we will address what health economics means and discuss the different types and key features of economic evaluation relevant for clinical researchers.

Will the Eu Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 Inhibit Critical Care Research?

There is an inherent tension between critical care research and data protection. Because of their condition it is not possible to ask for the patients' informed consent to be enrolled in observational research at the point of admission to the hospital. Often this is not possible at a later moment either. Yet informed consent is the baseline to be enrolled in research with personal data and exceptions must be allowed for by national legislation. This was the case under Directive 95/96/EC and will be the case under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, Regulation 2016/679 EU) which will replace the Directive from 25 May 2018 onwards. Though being a Regulation and therefore directly applicable in the Member States, the long debate about the research exceptions in the GDPR left many aspects of observational research including the exception to the informed consent principle, mainly to the Member States. It may be assumed that most Member States will leave their present state of the law intact in this respect as that was part of the political compromise. We compared existing national privacy legislation from the perspective of critical care research and found great variation. Although this may not impede the collection of emergency and critical care research with data without prior informed consent in countries which are more responsive to such research, it might be a challenge to exchange such data from the national nodes in European wide research collaboration. We make a case that countries which are not responsive to such research should adapt their legislation in the interests of future critical care patients.

Impact of Social Media on Community Consultation in Exception From Informed Consent Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Exception from informed consent (EFIC) allows clinician scientists to perform much needed emergency research. Obtaining this exception, however, requires many meetings with community groups for consultation, which can make the process time-consuming and expensive. We aim to determine the impact of using social media in lieu of some community meetings in an effort to obtain an EFIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic analysis of four randomized clinical trials was performed. Costs were conservatively estimated using personnel costs, social media costs, and adjusted to 2016 US dollars. People were considered reached if they attended a community meeting or were directed to the study website by social media and spent ≥1 min. RESULTS: The Early Whole Blood study required 14 meetings, reached 272 people, and cost $8260 ($30/person reached). The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios study required 14 meetings, reached 260 people, and cost $7479 overall ($29/person reached). The Prehospital Tranexamic Acid Use for Traumatic Brain Injury study required 12 meetings, reached 198 people, and cost $6340 ($32/person reached). Only the damage control laparotomy trial utilized social media in lieu of some community meetings. The damage control laparotomy trial required six meetings at which 137 people were reached. The $1000 social media campaign reached 229 people. The cost was $3977 overall and $11/person reached. CONCLUSIONS: Including a social media campaign during the EFIC process increased the number of potential patients reached and reduced total and per person costs reached costs. Obtaining an EFIC for future emergency clinical trials may be facilitated by the inclusion of a social media campaign.

Ethical aspects of sudden cardiac arrest research using observational data: a narrative review.

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) accounts for half of all cardiac deaths in Europe. In recent years, large-scale SCA registries have been set up to enable observational studies into risk factors and the effect of treatment approaches. The increasing scale and variety of data sources, coupled with the implementation of a new European data protection legal framework, causes researchers to struggle with how to handle these 'big data'. Data protection in the SCA setting is especially complex since patients become at least temporarily incapacitated, and are thus unable to provide prospective informed consent, and because the majority of patients do not survive. A narrative review employing a systematic literature search was conducted to thematically analyse ethical aspects of non-interventional emergency medicine and critical care research. Although the identified issues may apply to a wider patient population, we describe them within the context of SCA research. Potential harms were found to include: privacy breaches, genetic discrimination and issues associated with the disclosure of individual findings, study design and application of research results. Measures proposed to mitigate harms were: alternative informed consent models including deferred or waived consent and data governance approaches promoting data security, responsible sharing and public engagement. The themes identified in this study may serve as a basis for a much-needed ethical framework regarding research with data from patients with acute and critical illness such as SCA.

Engaging emergency clinicians in emergency department clinical research.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this panel was to generate recommendations to promote the engagement of front-line emergency department (ED) clinicians in clinical and implementation research. METHODS: Panel members conducted semi-structured interviews with 37 Canadian adult and pediatric emergency medicine researchers to elicit barriers and facilitators to clinician engagement in research activities, and to glean strategies for promoting clinician engagement. RESULTS: Responses were organized by themes, and, based on these responses, recommendations were developed and refined in an iterative fashion by panel members. CONCLUSIONS: We offer eight recommendations to promote front-line clinician engagement in clinical research activities. Recommendations to promote clinician engagement specifically address the creation of a research-friendly culture in the ED, minimizing the burden of data collection on clinical staff through the careful design of data collection tools and the use of research staff, and communication between researchers and clinical staff to promote adherence to study protocols.

The protection of unrepresented patients in emergency care research.

In emergency care research, it may be the case that neither informed consent nor surrogate consent is possible. In order to nonetheless allow for such research, codes and regulations of research ethics have increasingly incorporated provisions regarding this specific situation. The protection that those provisions offer need to be better understood. This article addresses in what ways they protect individuals, and especially the extent to which the suggested protection compensates for the loss of surrogate consent. The Declaration of Helsinki, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation serve as the main illustrations.

Impact of individual clinical outcomes on trial participants' perspectives on enrollment in emergency research without consent.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patients are generally accepting of their enrollment in trials for emergency care conducted under exception from informed consent. It is unknown whether individuals with more severe initial injuries or worse clinical outcomes have different perspectives. Determining whether these differences exist may help to structure post-enrollment interactions. METHODS: Primary clinical data from the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were matched to interview data from the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study. Answers to three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study were analyzed in the context of enrolled patients' initial injury severity (initial Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score) and principal clinical outcomes (Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale relative to initial injury severity). The three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study addressed participants' general attitude toward inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial (general trial inclusion), their specific attitude toward being included in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under the exception from informed consent (personal exception from informed consent enrollment), and their attitude toward the use of exception from informed consent in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial in general (general exception from informed consent enrollment). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was performed to provide contextualization and to determine the extent to which respondents framed their attitudes in terms of clinical experience. RESULTS: Clinical data from Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were available for all 74 patients represented in the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study (including 46 patients for whom the surrogate was interviewed due to the patient's cognitive status or death). No significant difference was observed regarding acceptance of general trial inclusion or acceptance of general exception from informed consent enrollment between participants with favorable neurological outcomes and those with unfavorable outcomes relative to initial injury. Agreement with personal enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent, however, was significantly higher among participants with favorable outcomes compared to those with unfavorable outcomes (89% vs 59%, p = 0.003). There was also a statistically significant relationship between more severe initial injury and increased acceptance of personal exception from informed consent enrollment ( p = 0.040) or general exception from informed consent use ( p = 0.034) in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial. Many individuals referenced personal experience as a basis for their attitudes, but these references were not used to support negative views. CONCLUSION: Patients and surrogates of patients with unfavorable clinical outcomes were somewhat less accepting of their own inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent than were patients or surrogates of patients with favorable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest a need to identify optimal strategies for communicating with patients and their surrogates regarding exception from informed consent enrollment when clinical outcomes are poor.

Pediatric concussion: biomechanical differences between outcomes of transient and persistent (> 4 weeks) postconcussion symptoms.

OBJECTIVE Currently, little is known about the biomechanics of head impact for concussion in youths (ages 5 to 18 years). Even less is known about the biomechanical characteristics and variables related to head impacts that may be useful in differentiating between transient and persistent postconcussion symptoms in a youth population. The purpose of this research was to examine the differences in biomechanics of youth head impact for transient postconcussion symptoms (TPCSs) and persistent postconcussion symptoms (PPCSs) by using data from a hospital population. METHODS In a laboratory setting and using physical, computational, and finite element models, the authors reconstructed falling events in a large cohort of patients who had sustained a brain injury that resulted in transient or persistent postconcussion symptoms. The falling events and resulting concussions for the TPCS and PPCS patient groups were analyzed in terms of force, energy, peak resultant linear and rotational accelerations, and maximum principal strain in the gray and white matter of the brain, as well as measurements of cumulative strain damage. RESULTS The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups for any of the variables analyzed. CONCLUSIONS With methods derived for use in an adult population, the magnitudes of peak linear acceleration for the youth data set were determined to be above the 50% risk of injury. The youth data set showed higher brain tissue strain responses for lower energy and impact velocities than measured in adults, suggesting that youths are at higher risk of concussive injury at lower event severities. A trend shown by some variables indicated that larger magnitudes of response were associated with PPCSs, but no single measurement variable consistently differentiated between the TPCS and PPCS groups. It is possible that using the biomechanics of head and brain responses to predict a subjective symptom load may not be appropriate. To enhance future biomechanical analyses, further investigations should include the use of quantifiable measures of brain injury linked to clinical outcomes and possible confounding factors such as history of brain injury and patient predisposition.

A comparison in a youth population between those with and without a history of concussion using biomechanical reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE Concussion is a common topic of research as a result of the short- and long-term effects it can have on the affected individual. Of particular interest is whether previous concussions can lead to a biomechanical susceptibility, or vulnerability, to incurring further head injuries, particularly for youth populations. The purpose of this research was to compare the impact biomechanics of a concussive event in terms of acceleration and brain strains of 2 groups of youths: those who had incurred a previous concussion and those who had not. It was hypothesized that the youths with a history of concussion would have lower-magnitude biomechanical impact measures than those who had never suffered a previous concussion. METHODS Youths who had suffered a concussion were recruited from emergency departments across Canada. This pool of patients was then separated into 2 categories based on their history of concussion: those who had incurred 1 or more previous concussions, and those who had never suffered a concussion. The impact event that resulted in the brain injury was reconstructed biomechanically using computational, physical, and finite element modeling techniques. The output of the events was measured in biomechanical parameters such as energy, force, acceleration, and brain tissue strain to determine if those patients who had a previous concussion sustained a brain injury at lower magnitudes than those who had no previously reported concussion. RESULTS The results demonstrated that there was no biomechanical variable that could distinguish between the concussion groups with a history of concussion versus no history of concussion. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that there is no measureable biomechanical vulnerability to head impact related to a history of concussions in this youth population. This may be a reflection of the long time between the previous concussion and the one reconstructed in the laboratory, where such a long period has been associated with recovery from injury.