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
Review
. 2023 Mar 2;8(1):e001044.
doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2022-001044. eCollection 2023.

Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review

Cynthia Lizette Villarreal  1 , Michelle A Price  1 , Ashley N Moreno  1 , Alfonso Zenteno  1 , Christine Saenz  1 , Alexander Toppo  1 , Juan Pablo Herrera-Escobar  2 , Carrie A Sims  3 , Eileen M Bulger  4 ; (NTRAP) Investigators Group National Trauma Research Action Plan
Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review

Cynthia Lizette Villarreal et al. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. .

Abstract

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies.

Keywords: informed consent; policy; research; vulnerable populations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram of studies for inclusion in a scoping review of human subjects’ protection and regulatory challenges in conducting emergency research.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Heat map illustrating the countries in which the studies were conducted.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Regulatory challenges addressed. EFIC, exception from informed consent.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Herrera-Escobar JP, Osman SY, Das S, Toppo A, Orlas CP, Castillo-Angeles M, Rosario A, Janjua MB, Arain MA, Reidy E, et al. . National trauma research action plan investigators group. long-term patient-reported outcome measures after injury: national trauma research action plan (NTRAP) scoping review protocol. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2021;90:891–900. - PMC - PubMed
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . A national trauma care system: integrating military and civilian trauma systems to achieve zero preventable deaths after injury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016. - PubMed
    1. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-scr): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Price MA, Beilman GJ, Fabian TC, Hoyt DB, Jurkovich GJ, Knudson MM, MacKenzie EJ, Marshall VS, Overton KE, Peitzman AB, et al. . The National trauma Institute: lessons learned in the funding and conduct of 16 trauma research studies. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016;81:548–54. 10.1097/TA.0000000000001080 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wrist and Radius Injury Surgical Trial (WRIST) Study Group . Reflections 1 year into the 21-center national institutes of health -- funded wrist study: a primer on conducting a multicenter clinical trial. J Hand Surg Am 2013;38:1194–201. 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.02.027 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources