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. Th...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Samah F. Al-Shatnawi, Karem H. Alzoubi, Rawand A. Khasawneh, Omar F. Khabour, Basima A. Almomani
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/cd42e1a049344648b4e9d7df34e050a9
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario: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.