充分利用同意:急性中风试验中以患者为中心的同意

Q2 Social Sciences
Neal W. Dickert, Kathleen Metz, S. Iris Deeds, Michael J. Linke, Andrea R. Mitchell, Candace D. Speight, Opeolu M. Adeoye
{"title":"充分利用同意:急性中风试验中以患者为中心的同意","authors":"Neal W. Dickert,&nbsp;Kathleen Metz,&nbsp;S. Iris Deeds,&nbsp;Michael J. Linke,&nbsp;Andrea R. Mitchell,&nbsp;Candace D. Speight,&nbsp;Opeolu M. Adeoye","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Informed consent for clinical trials in acute stroke is characterized by challenges related to urgency, cognitive impairment, and geographical separation. Context-appropriate approaches are needed for this setting. We conducted a mixed-methods project involving focus groups and interviews as well as collaboration with a patient advisory panel and a central institutional review board (CIRB) to design and implement a patient-driven consent process for a multicenter trial incorporating adaptive randomization. Remote consent was recognized as challenging but acceptable. Adaptive randomization was viewed positively, but significant potential for misunderstanding was appreciated. Collaboration between the patient advisory panel and the CIRB resulted in a shortened, more patient-centered consent form that was approved at all sites with few modifications. An information sheet was developed as a resource for patients and surrogates after enrollment. Collaboration between investigators, patient partners, and a CIRB can facilitate innovation and implementation of patient-centered, context-appropriate consent strategies.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"44 2","pages":"33-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Getting the Most out of Consent: Patient-Centered Consent for an Acute Stroke Trial\",\"authors\":\"Neal W. Dickert,&nbsp;Kathleen Metz,&nbsp;S. Iris Deeds,&nbsp;Michael J. Linke,&nbsp;Andrea R. Mitchell,&nbsp;Candace D. Speight,&nbsp;Opeolu M. Adeoye\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Informed consent for clinical trials in acute stroke is characterized by challenges related to urgency, cognitive impairment, and geographical separation. Context-appropriate approaches are needed for this setting. We conducted a mixed-methods project involving focus groups and interviews as well as collaboration with a patient advisory panel and a central institutional review board (CIRB) to design and implement a patient-driven consent process for a multicenter trial incorporating adaptive randomization. Remote consent was recognized as challenging but acceptable. Adaptive randomization was viewed positively, but significant potential for misunderstanding was appreciated. Collaboration between the patient advisory panel and the CIRB resulted in a shortened, more patient-centered consent form that was approved at all sites with few modifications. An information sheet was developed as a resource for patients and surrogates after enrollment. Collaboration between investigators, patient partners, and a CIRB can facilitate innovation and implementation of patient-centered, context-appropriate consent strategies.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"44 2\",\"pages\":\"33-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

急性卒中临床试验的知情同意的特点是与紧迫性、认知障碍和地理分离相关的挑战。这种设置需要适合上下文的方法。我们进行了一个混合方法项目,包括焦点小组和访谈,以及与患者咨询小组和中央机构审查委员会(CIRB)合作,为一项纳入自适应随机化的多中心试验设计和实施患者驱动的同意过程。远程同意被认为具有挑战性,但可以接受。适应性随机化被认为是积极的,但也有可能引起误解。患者咨询小组和CIRB之间的合作使同意书更短,更以患者为中心,在几乎没有修改的情况下在所有地点获得批准。一份信息表在入组后作为患者和代孕母亲的资源。研究人员、患者合作伙伴和CIRB之间的合作可以促进以患者为中心、适合情境的同意策略的创新和实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Getting the Most out of Consent: Patient-Centered Consent for an Acute Stroke Trial

Informed consent for clinical trials in acute stroke is characterized by challenges related to urgency, cognitive impairment, and geographical separation. Context-appropriate approaches are needed for this setting. We conducted a mixed-methods project involving focus groups and interviews as well as collaboration with a patient advisory panel and a central institutional review board (CIRB) to design and implement a patient-driven consent process for a multicenter trial incorporating adaptive randomization. Remote consent was recognized as challenging but acceptable. Adaptive randomization was viewed positively, but significant potential for misunderstanding was appreciated. Collaboration between the patient advisory panel and the CIRB resulted in a shortened, more patient-centered consent form that was approved at all sites with few modifications. An information sheet was developed as a resource for patients and surrogates after enrollment. Collaboration between investigators, patient partners, and a CIRB can facilitate innovation and implementation of patient-centered, context-appropriate consent strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信