Consent models in Canadian critical care randomized controlled trials: a scoping review.
Modèles de consentement dans les études randomisées contrôlées en soins intensifs canadiennes : une étude de portée.
critical care
deferred consent
informed consent
intensive care unit
pediatric intensive care unit
Journal
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie
ISSN: 1496-8975
Titre abrégé: Can J Anaesth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8701709
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
received:
09
08
2021
accepted:
08
11
2021
revised:
06
11
2021
pubmed:
16
12
2021
medline:
8
4
2022
entrez:
15
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Our primary objective was to describe consent models used in Canadian-led adult and pediatric intensive care unit (ICU/PICU) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our secondary objectives were to determine the consent rate of ICU/PICU RCTs that did and did not use an alternate consent model to describe consent procedures. Using scoping review methodology, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (from 1998 to June 2019) for trials published in English or French. We included Canadian-led RCTs that reported on the effects of an intervention on ICU/PICU patients or their families. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, abstracted data, and achieved consensus. We identified 48 RCTs of 17,558 patients. Included RCTs had ethics approval to use prior informed consent (43/48; 90%), deferred consent (13/48; 27%), waived consent (5/48; 10%), and verbal consent (1/48; 2%) models. Fifteen RCTs (15/48; 31%) had ethics approval to use more than one consent model. Twice as many trials used alternate consent between 2010 and 2019 (13/19) than between 2000 and 2009 (6/19). The consent rate for RCTs using only prior informed consent ranged from 54 to 91% (ICU) and 43 to 94% (PICU) and from 78 to 100% (ICU) and 74 to 87% (PICU) in trials using an alternate/hybrid consent model. Alternate consent models were used in the minority of Canadian-led ICU/PICU RCTs but have been used more frequently over the last decade. This suggests that Canadian ethics boards and research communities are becoming more accepting of alternate consent models in ICU/PICU trials. RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif principal était de décrire les modèles de consentement utilisés dans les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) menées par des chercheurs canadiens dans les unités de soins intensifs adultes et pédiatriques (USI/USIP). Nos objectifs secondaires étaient de déterminer le taux de consentement aux ERC à l’USI et l’USIP qui utilisaient et n’utilisaient pas un autre modèle de consentement pour décrire les processus de consentement. SOURCES: À l’aide d’une méthodologie d’étude de portée, nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL (de 1998 à juin 2019) pour en tirer les études publiées en anglais ou en français. Nous avons inclus des ERC dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens qui rapportaient les effets d’une intervention sur les patients à l’USI/USIP ou leurs familles. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont évalué l’admissibilité, résumé les données et atteint un consensus. RéSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Nous avons identifié 48 ERC portant sur 17 558 patients. Les ERC incluses avaient obtenu l’approbation du comité d’éthique pour l’utilisation de modèles de consentement éclairé préalable (43/48; 90 %), de consentement différé (13/48; 27 %), de renoncement au consentement (5/48; 10 %) et de consentement verbal (1/48; 2 %). Quinze ERC (15/48; 31 %) avaient reçu l’approbation du comité d’éthique pour utiliser plus d’un modèle de consentement. Deux fois plus d’études ont utilisé un autre type de consentement entre 2010 et 2019 (13/19) qu’entre 2000 et 2009 (6/19). Le taux de consentement pour les ERC utilisant uniquement un consentement éclairé préalable variait de 54 à 91 % (USI) et de 43 à 94 % (USIP), contre 78 à 100 % (USI) et 74 à 87 % (USIP) pour les études utilisant un modèle de consentement alternatif/hybride. CONCLUSION: Des modèles de consentement alternatif ont été utilisés dans une minorité des ERC en USI/USIP dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens, mais ils ont été utilisés plus fréquemment au cours de la dernière décennie. Cela donne à penser que les comités d’éthique et les communautés de recherche canadiens acceptent de plus en plus les modèles de consentement alternatifs dans les études réalisées en USI et en USIP.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(fre)
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Notre objectif principal était de décrire les modèles de consentement utilisés dans les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) menées par des chercheurs canadiens dans les unités de soins intensifs adultes et pédiatriques (USI/USIP). Nos objectifs secondaires étaient de déterminer le taux de consentement aux ERC à l’USI et l’USIP qui utilisaient et n’utilisaient pas un autre modèle de consentement pour décrire les processus de consentement. SOURCES: À l’aide d’une méthodologie d’étude de portée, nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, Embase et CENTRAL (de 1998 à juin 2019) pour en tirer les études publiées en anglais ou en français. Nous avons inclus des ERC dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens qui rapportaient les effets d’une intervention sur les patients à l’USI/USIP ou leurs familles. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont évalué l’admissibilité, résumé les données et atteint un consensus. RéSULTATS PRINCIPAUX: Nous avons identifié 48 ERC portant sur 17 558 patients. Les ERC incluses avaient obtenu l’approbation du comité d’éthique pour l’utilisation de modèles de consentement éclairé préalable (43/48; 90 %), de consentement différé (13/48; 27 %), de renoncement au consentement (5/48; 10 %) et de consentement verbal (1/48; 2 %). Quinze ERC (15/48; 31 %) avaient reçu l’approbation du comité d’éthique pour utiliser plus d’un modèle de consentement. Deux fois plus d’études ont utilisé un autre type de consentement entre 2010 et 2019 (13/19) qu’entre 2000 et 2009 (6/19). Le taux de consentement pour les ERC utilisant uniquement un consentement éclairé préalable variait de 54 à 91 % (USI) et de 43 à 94 % (USIP), contre 78 à 100 % (USI) et 74 à 87 % (USIP) pour les études utilisant un modèle de consentement alternatif/hybride. CONCLUSION: Des modèles de consentement alternatif ont été utilisés dans une minorité des ERC en USI/USIP dirigées par des chercheurs canadiens, mais ils ont été utilisés plus fréquemment au cours de la dernière décennie. Cela donne à penser que les comités d’éthique et les communautés de recherche canadiens acceptent de plus en plus les modèles de consentement alternatifs dans les études réalisées en USI et en USIP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34907503
doi: 10.1007/s12630-021-02176-y
pii: 10.1007/s12630-021-02176-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
513-526Informations de copyright
© 2021. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.
Références
Vincent JL. Evidence-based medicine in the ICU: important advances and limitations. Chest 2004; 126: 592-600.
pubmed: 15302748
Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet 2014; 383: 176-85.
pubmed: 24411646
Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, TCPS2 2018. Available from URL: https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf (accessed November 2021).
Manda-Taylor L, Liomba A, Taylor TE, Elwell K. Barriers and facilitators to obtaining informed consent in a critical care pediatric research ward in Southern Malawi. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2019; 14: 152-68.
pubmed: 30866724
Burns KE, Zubrinich C, Marshall J, Cook D. The 'Consent to Research' paradigm in critical care: challenges and potential solutions. Intensive Care Med 2009; 35: 1655-8.
pubmed: 19582396
Burns KE, Zubrinich C, Tan W, et al. Research recruitment practices and critically ill patients. A multicenter, cross-sectional study (the Consent Study). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 1212-8.
Menon K, Ward RE, Gaboury I, et al. Factors affecting consent in pediatric critical care research. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38: 153-9.
pubmed: 22120768
Watson RS, Choong K, Colville G, et al. Life after critical illness in children-toward an understanding of pediatric post-intensive care syndrome. J Pediatr 2018; 198: 16-24.
pubmed: 29728304
Paparrigopoulos T, Melissaki A, Efthymiou A, et al. Short-term psychological impact on family members of intensive care unit patients. J Psychosom Res 2006; 61: 719-22.
pubmed: 17084152
Gertsman S, O'Hearn K, Gibson J, Menon K. Parental understanding of research consent forms in the PICU: a pilot study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2020; 21: 526-34.
pubmed: 32132500
Azoulay E, Chevret S, Leleu G, et al. Half the families of intensive care unit patients experience inadequate communication with physicians. Crit Care Med 2000; 28: 3044-9.
pubmed: 10966293
Topolovec-Vranic J, Santos M, Baker AJ, Smith OM, Burns KE. Deferred consent in a minimal-risk study involving critically ill subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. Can Respir J 2014; 21: 293-6.
pubmed: 24914705
pmcid: 4198231
Menon K, O'Hearn K, McNally JD, et al. Comparison of consent models in a randomized trial of corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18: 1009-18.
pubmed: 28817507
Annane D, Outin H, Fisch C, Bellissant E. The effect of waiving consent on enrollment in a sepsis trial. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 321-4.
pubmed: 14714106
NICE-SUGAR Investigators; Finfer S, Chittock DR, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1283-97.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467-73.
pubmed: 30178033
Duffett M, Choong K, Hartling L, et al. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric critical care: a scoping review. Crit Care 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13083 .
doi: 10.1186/cc13083
pubmed: 24168782
pmcid: 4057256
Nama N, Barrowman N, O'Hearn K, Sampson M, Zemek R, McNally JD. Quality control for crowdsourcing citation screening: the importance of assessment number and qualification set size. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 122: 160-2.
pubmed: 32142884
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
pubmed: 31078660
pmcid: 7254481
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 377-81.
Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971; 76: 378-82.
R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2019.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-58.
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evidence Based Mental Health 2019; 22: 153-60.
pubmed: 31563865
Rennick JE, Stremler R, Horwood L, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of an intervention to promote psychological well-being in critically ill children: soothing through touch, reading, and music. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2018; 19: e358-66.
pubmed: 29659416
Choong K, Awladthani S, Khawaji A, et al. Early exercise in critically ill youth and children, a preliminary evaluation: the wEECYCLE pilot trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18: e546-54.
pubmed: 28922268
Zheng K, Sarti A, Boles S, et al. Impressions of early mobilization of critically ill children-clinician, patient, and family perspectives. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2018; 19: e350-7.
pubmed: 29649021
Liet JM, Millotte B, Tucci M, et al. Noninvasive therapy with helium-oxygen for severe bronchiolitis. J Pediatr 2005; 147: 812-7.
pubmed: 16356437
Spinella PC, Tucci M, Fergusson DA, et al. Effect of fresh vs standard-issue red blood cell transfusions on multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critically ill pediatric patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019; 322: 2179-90.
pubmed: 31821429
pmcid: 7081749
Menon K, McNally D, O'Hearn K, et al. A randomized controlled trial of corticosteroids in pediatric septic shock: a pilot feasibility study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2017; 18: 505-12.
pubmed: 28406862
pmcid: 5457353
Hutchison JS, Ward RE, Lacroix J, et al. Hypothermia therapy after traumatic brain injury in children. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2447-56.
pubmed: 18525042
Ouellet JF, Trottier V, Kmet L, et al. The OPTICC trial: a multi-institutional study of occult pneumothoraces in critical care. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 581-6.
pubmed: 19306978
Burns KE, Wong JT, Dodek P, et al. Frequency of screening for weaning from mechanical ventilation: two contemporaneous proof-of-principle randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med 2019; 47: 817-25.
pubmed: 30920411
Scales DC, Golan E, Pinto R, et al. Improving appropriate neurologic prognostication after cardiac arrest. A stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 194: 1083-91.
Burns KE, Rizvi L, Smith OM, et al. Is there a role for physician involvement in introducing research to surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit? (The Approach trial: a pilot mixed methods study). Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 58-67.
pubmed: 25491659
Bourgault AM, Heyland DK, Drover JW, et al. Prophylactic pancreatic enzymes to reduce feeding tube occlusions. Nutr Clin Pract 2003; 18: 398-401.
pubmed: 16215072
Oczkowski SJ, Klotz L, Mazzetti I, et al. Furosemide and albumin for diuresis of edema (FADE): a parallel-group, blinded, pilot randomized controlled pilot trial. J Crit Care 2018; 48: 462-7.
pubmed: 30037660
Jain MK, Heyland D, Dhaliwal R, et al. Dissemination of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 2362-9.
pubmed: 16850001
Heyland DK, Murch L, Cahill N, et al. Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol in critically ill patients: results of a cluster randomized trial. Crit Care Med 2013; 41: 2743-53.
pubmed: 23982032
Alhazzani W, Guyatt G, Alshahrani M, et al. Withholding pantoprazole for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a pilot randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2017; 45: 1121-9.
pubmed: 28459708
Lacroix J, Hebert PC, Fergusson DA, et al. Age of transfused blood in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1410-8.
pubmed: 25853745
Wald R, Friedrich JO, Bagshaw SM, et al. Optimal mode of clearance in critically ill patients with Acute Kidney Injury (OMAKI)--a pilot randomized controlled trial of hemofiltration versus hemodialysis: a Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project. Crit Care 2012; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11835 .
doi: 10.1186/cc11835
pubmed: 23095370
pmcid: 3682309
McIntyre LA, Fergusson DA, Cook DJ, et al. Fluid resuscitation with 5% albumin versus normal saline in early septic shock: a pilot randomized, controlled trial. J Crit Care 2012; 27: 317.e1-6.
Wald R, Adhikari NK, Smith OM, et al. Comparison of standard and accelerated initiation of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. Kidney Int 2015; 88: 897-904.
pubmed: 26154928
Lamontagne F, Meade MO, Hébert PC, et al. Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42: 542-50.
pubmed: 26891677
McDonald E, Zytaruk N, Clarke F, et al. 157: Deferred consent in a low risk observational study: optimizing recruitment in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2012; 40: 1-328.
Furyk J, McBain-Rigg K, Watt K, et al. Qualitative evaluation of a deferred consent process in paediatric emergency research: a PREDICT study. BMJ Open 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018562 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018562
pubmed: 29146655
pmcid: 5695338
Burns KE, Magyarody NM, Duffett M, Nisenbaum R, Cook DJ. Attitudes of the general public toward alternative consent models. Am J Crit Care 2011; 20: 75-83.
pubmed: 20378776
Heyland D, Muscedere J, Wischmeyer PE, et al. A randomized trial of glutamine and antioxidants in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 1489-97.
pubmed: 23594003
Mailhot T, Cossette S, Cote J, et al. A post cardiac surgery intervention to manage delirium involving families: a randomized pilot study. Nurs Crit Care 2017; 22: 221-8.
pubmed: 28371230
Choong K, Bohn D, Fraser DD, et al. Vasopressin in pediatric vasodilatory shock: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 180: 632-9.
pubmed: 19608718
Duffett M, Burns KE, Kho ME, et al. Consent in critical care trials: a survey of Canadian research ethics boards and critical care researchers. J Crit Care 2011; 26: 533.e11-22.
Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, Young B. How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-45 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-45
pubmed: 24195717
pmcid: 4228267
Faden R, Kass N, Whicher D, Stewart W, Tunis S. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care 2013; 51(8 Suppl 3): S53-7.
pubmed: 23793051
Kim SY, Miller FG. Informed consent for pragmatic trials--the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 769-72.
pubmed: 24552326
McKinney RE Jr, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials 2015; 12: 494-502.
pubmed: 26374677
pmcid: 4688909