Parents' and clinicians' views on conducting paediatric diagnostic test accuracy studies without prior informed consent: qualitative insight from the Petechiae in Children study (PiC).


Journal

Archives of disease in childhood
ISSN: 1468-2044
Titre abrégé: Arch Dis Child
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372434

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2019
Historique:
received: 25 02 2019
revised: 22 04 2019
accepted: 25 04 2019
pubmed: 9 6 2019
medline: 17 3 2020
entrez: 9 6 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The Petechiae in Children (PiC) study assesses the utility of presenting features and rapid diagnostic tests in the diagnosis of serious bacterial infection in feverish children with non-blanching rashes. An embedded qualitative study explored parents' and clinicians' views on the acceptability of the PiC study, including the use of research without prior consent (RWPC) in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Semistructured qualitative interviews. Analysis was thematic and broadly interpretive, informed by the constant comparative approach. Fifteen parents were interviewed 55 (median) days since their child's hospital attendance (range 13-95). Five clinicians involved in recruitment, and consent were interviewed. Parents and clinicians supported RWPC for the PiC study and future emergency paediatric diagnostic test accuracy studies as long as there is no harm to the child and emergency care is not delayed. Parents and clinicians made recommendations around the timing and conduct of a consent discussion, which were in line with RWPC guidance. Parents enrolled in the PiC study preferred a design that included consent discussions with the research team over the alternative of 'opt-out' consent only. This embedded qualitative study demonstrates that RWPC is appropriate for use in paediatric emergency studies of diagnostic test accuracy and that the approach used in PiC was appropriate. Future diagnostic studies involving additional invasive procedures or an opt-out only approach to consent would benefit from exploring parent and clinician views on acceptability at the pretrial stage. NCT03378258.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31175126
pii: archdischild-2019-317117
doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-317117
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03378258']

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

979-983

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Thomas Waterfield (T)

Centre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

Mark D Lyttle (MD)

Emergency Department, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK.
Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Michael Shields (M)

Centre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.

Derek Fairley (D)

Emergency Department, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Belfast, UK.

Damian Roland (D)

SAPPHIRE Group, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

James McKenna (J)

Emergency Department, Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Belfast, UK.

Kerry Woolfall (K)

Institute of Population Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH