Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2015 Mar;43(3):603-12.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000747.

Patients' perspectives of enrollment in research without consent: the patients' experiences in emergency research-progesterone for the treatment of traumatic brain injury study

Neal W Dickert  1 , Victoria M Scicluna, Jill M Baren, Michelle H Biros, Ross J Fleischman, Prasanthi R Govindarajan, Elizabeth B Jones, Arthur M Pancioli, David W Wright, Rebecca D Pentz
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Patients' perspectives of enrollment in research without consent: the patients' experiences in emergency research-progesterone for the treatment of traumatic brain injury study

Neal W Dickert et al. Crit Care Med. 2015 Mar.

Erratum in

  • Crit Care Med. 2016 Apr;44(4):e240

Abstract

Objective: Research in acute illness often requires an exception from informed consent. Few studies have assessed the views of patients enrolled in exception from informed consent trials. This study was designed to assess the views of patients and their surrogates of exception from informed consent enrollment within the context of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent for traumatic brain injury.

Design: Interactive interview study.

Setting: Nested within the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial, a Phase III randomized controlled trial in acute traumatic brain injury.

Subjects: Patients and surrogates (for patients incapable of being interviewed) enrolled in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury under exception from informed consent at 12 sites.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Interviews focused on respondents' acceptance of exception from informed consent enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury, use of placebo and randomization, understanding of major study elements, and views regarding regulatory protections. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed; textual data were analyzed thematically. Eighty-five individuals were interviewed. Eighty-four percent had positive attitudes toward Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury inclusion. Seventy-eight percent found their inclusion under exception from informed consent acceptable, and 72% found use of exception from informed consent in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury acceptable in general. Only two respondents clearly disagreed with both personal and general exception from informed consent enrollment. The most common concerns (26%) related to absence of consent. Eighty percent and 92% were accepting of placebo use and randomization, respectively. Although there were few black respondents (n = 11), they were less accepting of personal exception from informed consent enrollment than white respondents (55% vs 83%; p = 0.0494).

Conclusions: Acceptance of exception from informed consent in this placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent was high and exceeded acceptance among community consultation participants. Exception from informed consent enrollment appears generally consistent with patients' preferences.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Wright is entitled to royalty through Emory University, derived from any BHR Pharma sales of progesterone for use in traumatic brain injury. The terms of this arrangement have been reviewed and approved by Emory University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies. The authors report no additional conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study Enrollment
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What Makes Clinical Research Ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11. - PubMed
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Title 45 (Code of Federal Regulations), Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects - PubMed
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Institutional Review Boards, clinical investigators, and sponsors: Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research. Rockville, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2013. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm249673.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2014.
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Title 21 (Code of Federal Regulations), Part 50.24 Protection of Human Subjects. 2004
    1. Largent EA, Wendler D, Emanuel E, Miller FG. Is emergency research without initial consent justified?: the consent substitute model. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):668–74. - PubMed

Publication types