Rates and determinants of informed consent: A case study of an international thromboprophylaxis trial

Journal of Critical Care

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 28-39

  Smith, Orla M ^a   McDonald, Ellen ^b   Zytaruk, Nicole ^b   Foster, Denise ^c   Matte, Andrea ^a   Clarke, France ^b   Meade, Laurie ^d   O'Callaghan, Nicole ^e   Vallance, Shirley ^f   Galt, Pauline ^g   Rajbhandari, Dorrilyn ^h   Rocha, Marcelo ⁱ   Mehta, Sangeeta ^a   Ferguson, Niall D ^a   Hall, Richard ^j   Fowler, Robert ^a   Burns, Karen ^a   Qushmaq, Ismael ^k   Ostermann, Marlies ^l   Heels Ansdell, Diane ^b   Cook, Deborah ^b   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTRE   (Canada)

^c VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^g MONASH MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

^h ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

ⁱ Santa Casa Complexo Hospitalar   (Brazil)

^j DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^k KING FAISAL SPECIALIST HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER   (Saudi Arabia)

^l GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Clinical research; Critical care; Informed consent; Intensive care; Randomized trials; Studies

Indexed keywords

DALTEPARIN; HEPARIN; LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT HEPARIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRITICALLY ILL PATIENT; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; HOSPITAL BED; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEW ZEALAND; PILOT STUDY; PROPHYLAXIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; THROMBOEMBOLISM; THROMBOPROPHYLAXIS;

GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; THROMBOEMBOLISM; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 84870807491     PISSN: 08839441     EISSN: 15578615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2012.08.005     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Morgenweck C.J. Innovation to research: some transitional obstacles in critical care units. Crit Care Med 2003, 31:S172-S177.
2. Bigatello L.M., George E., Hurford W.E. Ethical considerations for research in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2003, 31:S178-S181.
3. Luce J.M., Cook D.J., Martin T.R., et al. The ethical conduct of clinical research involving critically ill patients in the United States and Canada: principles and recommendations. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2004, 170:1375-1384.
4. Fan E., Shahid S., Kondreddi V.P., et al. Informed consent in the critically ill: a two-step approach incorporating delirium screening. Crit Care Med 2008, 36:94-99.
5. Arnold R.M., Kellum J. Moral justifications for surrogate decision making in the intensive care unit: implications and limitations. Crit Care Med 2003, 31:S347-S353.
6. Luce J.M. Research ethics and consent in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care 2003, 9:540-544.
7. Foster D., Cook D., Granton J., et al. Use of a screen log to audit patient recruitment into multiple randomized trials in the intensive care unit. Canadian Critical Care Trials group. Crit Care Med 2000, 28:867-871.
8. Rose L., Burns K., Smith O., et al. Quantifying threats to the feasibility of clinical trials in critically ill patients. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2009, 179:A1580.
9. Roberts I., Yates D., Sandercock P., et al. Effect of intravenous corticosteroids on death within 14 days in 10008 adults with clinically significant head injury (MRC CRASH trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364:1321-1328.
10. Annane D., Outin H., Fisch C., et al. The effect of waiving consent on enrollment in a sepsis trial. Intensive Care Med 2004, 30:321-324.
11. Harvey S.E., Elbourne D., Ashcroft J., et al. Informed consent in clinical trials in critical care: experience from the PAC-man study. Intensive Care Med 2006, 32:2020-2025.
12. Finfer S., Chittock D.R., et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009, 360:1283-1297. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators.
13. Dalteparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2011, 364:1305-1314. The PROTECT Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Groupthe Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group.
14. Cook D., Meade M., Guyatt G., et al. PROphylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in critical care trial protocol and analysis plan. J Crit Care 2011, 26:223.e1-223.e9. for the PROTECT Investigators, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Groupthe Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Trials GroupAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Trials Group.
15. Cook D.J., Rocker G., Meade M., et al. Prophylaxis of thromboembolism in critical care (PROTECT) trial: a pilot study. J Crit Care 2005, 20:364-372. for the PROTECT Investigators, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Groupthe Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Trials GroupAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Trials Group.
16. Burns K.E.A., Zubrinich C., Tan W., et al. Understanding barriers to recruitment and why patients and surrogates consent for critical care research: the consent study (A CCCTG project). Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2010, 181:A6047.
17. Scales D.C., Smith O.M., Pinto R., et al. Patients' preferences for enrolment into critical-care trials. Intensive Care Med 2009, 35:1703-1712.
18. Barrett K., Athaide V., Smith O.M., et al. Proxy evaluations rating methods for inclusion into trials (PERMIT 2). Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2009, 179:A1573.
19. Perner A., Ibsen M., Bonde J. Attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious intensive care patients. BMC Anesthesiol 2010, 10:6.
20. Freeman B.D., Kennedy C.R., Coopersmith C.M., et al. Genetic research and testing in critical care: surrogates' perspective. Crit Care Med 2006, 34:986-994.
21. Chenaud C., Merlani P., Verdon M., et al. Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study. J Med Ethics 2009, 35:709-712.
22. Ciroldi M., Cariou A., Adrie C., et al. Ability of family members to predict patient's consent to critical care research. Intensive Care Med 2007, 33:807-813.
23. Crowley S.T., Chertow G.M., Vitale J., et al. Lessons for successful study enrollment from the Veterans Affairs/National Institutes of Health Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008, 3:955-961.
24. Chertow G.M., Pascual M.T., Soroko S., et al. Reasons for non-enrollment in a cohort study of ARF: the program to improve care in acute renal disease (PICARD) experience and implications for a clinical trials network. Am J Kidney Dis 2003, 42:507-512.
25. Burns K.E., Zubrinich C., Marshall J., et al. The "consent to research" paradigm in critical care: challenges and potential solutions. Intensive Care Med 2009, 35:1655-1658.
26. Glassberg A.E., Luce J.M., Matthay M.A., et al. Reasons for nonenrollment in a clinical trial of acute lung injury. Chest 2008, 134:719-723.
27. Ross S., Grant A., Counsell C., et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52:1143-1156.
28. Wright J.R., Whelan T.J., Schiff S., et al. Why cancer patients enter randomized clinical trials: exploring the factors that influence their decision. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22:4312-4318.
29. Stunkel L., Benson M., McLellan L., et al. Comprehension and informed consent: assessing the effect of a short consent form. IRB 2010, 32:1-9.
30. Beardsley E., Jefford M., Mileshkin L. Longer consent forms for clinical trials compromise patient understanding: so why are they lengthening?. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:e13-e14.
31. Silverman H.J., Luce J.M., Lanken P.N., et al. Recommendations for informed consent forms for critical care clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2005, 33:867-882.
32. Luce J.M. Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients?. Crit Care Med 2003, 31:S153-S160.
33. Emanuel E.J., Wendler D., Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical?. JAMA 2000, 283:2701-2711.
34. Chlan L., Guttormson J., Tracy M.F., et al. Strategies for overcoming site and recruitment challenges in research studies based in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care 2009, 18:410-417.
35. Azoulay E., Pochard F., Kentish-Barnes N., et al. Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005, 171:987-994.
36. Shalowitz D.I., Garrett-Mayer E., Wendler D. The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2006, 166:493-497.
37. Muncie H.L., Magaziner J., Hebel J.R., et al. Proxies' decisions about clinical research participation for their charges. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997, 45:929-933.
38. Mehta S., Pelletier F.Q., Brown M., et al. Why substitute decision makers provide or decline consent for ICU research studies: a questionnaire study. Intensive Care Med 2012, 38:37-54.
39. Coppolino M., Ackerson L. Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research?. Chest 2001, 119:603-612.