Determinants of Patient and Surrogate Experiences With Acute Care Research Consent: A Key Informant Interview Study.
Adult
Adult Children
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biomedical Research
Communication
Decision Making
Female
Health Services Research
Humans
Informed Consent
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction
/ therapy
Patient Selection
Professionalism
Proxy
Qualitative Research
Research Personnel
Respect
Risk Assessment
Siblings
Spouses
Stroke
/ therapy
acute myocardial infarction
acute stroke
informed consent
research ethics
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
ISSN: 2047-9980
Titre abrégé: J Am Heart Assoc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 11 2019
19 11 2019
Historique:
entrez:
9
11
2019
pubmed:
9
11
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Informed consent for acute myocardial infarction and stroke research is challenging. Time for enrollment decisions is limited, patients and family are usually stressed, and being asked to participate in research is often unexpected. Despite these barriers, patients and surrogates have reported a preference for prospective involvement in research decisions and generally positive views of the consent process. It is unknown what drives positive or negative consent experiences. These data are crucial to making consent processes more context appropriate. Methods and Results We conducted a qualitative interview study with 27 patients and surrogates enrolled in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials in the past 5 years. Purposive sampling from the P-CARE (Patient-Centered Approaches to Research Enrollment) study was based on participant characteristics and responses to initial patient-centered interviews. In-depth interviews used open-ended questions to explore factors influencing consent experiences. Qualitative descriptive analysis was performed utilizing a multilevel coding strategy. Participants identified specific researcher behaviors as important, including expressions of respect, professionalism, and nonpressuring communication. Participants preferred consent conversations focused on risks/benefits and the trial protocol. They had varying views of consent forms and communicated several reasons the form was valuable unrelated to informational content. Participants also valued postenrollment interactions as opportunities to ask questions and learn about the study. Conclusions Barriers to consent in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials are unavoidable, but participants identified productive ways to demonstrate respect for patients during enrollment conversations. These include key researcher behaviors, concentrating consent discussions on what participants find most important, and structured postenrollment follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31698980
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.012599
pmc: PMC6915273
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e012599Références
Am J Bioeth. 2017 Dec;17(12):3-11
pubmed: 29148951
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):766-8
pubmed: 24552325
Lancet. 2003 Mar 15;361(9361):918-22
pubmed: 12648970
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jan 22;8(2):e010905
pubmed: 30663498
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jun;58(11):2313-24
pubmed: 15047087
BMJ. 1998 Oct 31;317(7167):1177-80
pubmed: 9794849
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jan;35(1):42-6
pubmed: 19103942
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;22(3):340-6
pubmed: 25716051
Heart. 2001 Dec;86(6):632-7
pubmed: 11711455
Circulation. 2019 Mar 26;139(13):1568-1577
pubmed: 30700144
J Med Ethics. 2008 Oct;34(10):751-6
pubmed: 18827109
Heart. 2004 Oct;90(10):1124-8
pubmed: 15367504
N Engl J Med. 2014 Feb 20;370(8):769-72
pubmed: 24552326
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Apr;67(4):538-45
pubmed: 26707358
Soc Sci Med. 1997 Nov;45(9):1337-55
pubmed: 9351153
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2012 Nov-Dec;55(3):251-7
pubmed: 23217428
JAMA. 2014 Apr 16;311(15):1497-8
pubmed: 24626256
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Nov 19;8(22):e012599
pubmed: 31698980
BMJ. 2015 Jul 29;351:h3791
pubmed: 26223782
Acute Card Care. 2015 Mar;17(1):1-4
pubmed: 25555022