Opt-out Consent in Children's Emergency Medicine Research.

Tony Long, Andrew Rowland, Sarah Cotterill, Steve Woby, Calvin Heal, Natalie Garratt, Steve Brown, Damian Roland
{"title":"Opt-out Consent in Children's Emergency Medicine Research.","authors":"Tony Long, Andrew Rowland, Sarah Cotterill, Steve Woby, Calvin Heal, Natalie Garratt, Steve Brown, Damian Roland","doi":"10.1080/24694193.2020.1812766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is global acceptance that individuals should be allowed to decide whether or not to take part in research studies, and to do so after being informed about the nature of the research and the risk that might attach to participation. The process of providing detailed information before seeking consent (formalized by signatures) in advance of undertaking research procedures may not be possible in some circumstances, and sometimes an amended approach may be adopted. The use of opt-out consent has been recognized as a valid and ethical means of recruiting participants to studies particularly with large samples and where the risk to participants is small. However, it is sometimes misunderstood and can be a problematic factor in being accepted by research ethics committees and governing authorities. This may be due partly to differing expectations of the amount of information and support offered, together with the nature of the process that is adopted to ensure that a decision has been made rather than consent simply being assumed. In accordance with ongoing discussions with young people, and following consultation with parents, an opt-out consent strategy including varied means of providing information was employed in a large study of 44,501 cases of children attending emergency or urgent care departments. The study was conducted over more than 12 months in dissimilar emergency departments and an urgent care unit, and was designed to support better decision-making in pediatric emergency departments about whether children need to be admitted to hospital or can be discharged home safely. Robust analysis of the factors that exerted the greatest impact on predicting the need to admit or the safety of discharging children led to a revised version of an existing tool. In this article, we review approaches to consent in research, the nature and impact of opt-out consent, the factors that made this an effective strategy for this study, but also more recent concerns which may make opt-out consent no longer acceptable.</p>","PeriodicalId":72655,"journal":{"name":"Comprehensive child and adolescent nursing","volume":" ","pages":"31-42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comprehensive child and adolescent nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24694193.2020.1812766","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is global acceptance that individuals should be allowed to decide whether or not to take part in research studies, and to do so after being informed about the nature of the research and the risk that might attach to participation. The process of providing detailed information before seeking consent (formalized by signatures) in advance of undertaking research procedures may not be possible in some circumstances, and sometimes an amended approach may be adopted. The use of opt-out consent has been recognized as a valid and ethical means of recruiting participants to studies particularly with large samples and where the risk to participants is small. However, it is sometimes misunderstood and can be a problematic factor in being accepted by research ethics committees and governing authorities. This may be due partly to differing expectations of the amount of information and support offered, together with the nature of the process that is adopted to ensure that a decision has been made rather than consent simply being assumed. In accordance with ongoing discussions with young people, and following consultation with parents, an opt-out consent strategy including varied means of providing information was employed in a large study of 44,501 cases of children attending emergency or urgent care departments. The study was conducted over more than 12 months in dissimilar emergency departments and an urgent care unit, and was designed to support better decision-making in pediatric emergency departments about whether children need to be admitted to hospital or can be discharged home safely. Robust analysis of the factors that exerted the greatest impact on predicting the need to admit or the safety of discharging children led to a revised version of an existing tool. In this article, we review approaches to consent in research, the nature and impact of opt-out consent, the factors that made this an effective strategy for this study, but also more recent concerns which may make opt-out consent no longer acceptable.

儿童急诊医学研究中的退出同意。
人们普遍认为,应当允许个人决定是否参加研究,而且是在了解了研究的性质和参加 研究可能带来的风险之后。在某些情况下,可能无法在开展研究程序之前先提供详细的信息,然后再征得同意 (通过签字正式确定),有时可能需要采取一种修正的方法。使用 "选择不同意 "的方法已被公认为是一种有效的、合乎伦理的研究方法,特别是在样本量大、参 与者面临的风险小的情况下。然而,这种方法有时会被误解,在被研究伦理委员会和管理机构接受时可能会出现问题。造成这种情况的部分原因可能是人们对所提供的信息和支持的数量有不同的期望,以及为确保作出决定而不是简单地假定同意所采用的程序的性质。根据与年轻人持续进行的讨论,并在征求家长意见后,在一项针对 44,501 例急诊或紧急护理部门就诊儿童的大型研究中,采用了选择性同意策略,包括提供信息的各种方式。这项研究在不同的急诊科和急诊室进行了 12 个多月,旨在帮助儿科急诊科更好地决策儿童是否需要住院或是否可以安全出院回家。对预测儿童是否需要入院或是否可以安全出院影响最大的因素进行深入分析后,我们对现有工具进行了修订。在这篇文章中,我们回顾了研究中的同意方式、选择不同意的性质和影响、使选择不同意成为本研究有效策略的因素,以及最近可能使选择不同意不再被接受的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信