How parents and practitioners experience research without prior consent (deferred consent) for emergency research involving children with life threatening conditions: a mixed method study

Kerry Woolfall, Lucy Frith, Carrol Gamble, Ruth Gilbert, Quen Mok, Bridget Young, CONNECT advisory group, Angus Dawson, Julia Harris, Claire Snowdon, Michael Parker, Helen Hickey, Hazel Greig-Midlane, Kerry Woolfall, Lucy Frith, Carrol Gamble, Ruth Gilbert, Quen Mok, Bridget Young, CONNECT advisory group, Angus Dawson, Julia Harris, Claire Snowdon, Michael Parker, Helen Hickey, Hazel Greig-Midlane

Abstract

Objective: Alternatives to prospective informed consent to enable children with life-threatening conditions to be entered into trials of emergency treatments are needed. Across Europe, a process called deferred consent has been developed as an alternative. Little is known about the views and experiences of those with first-hand experience of this controversial consent process. To inform how consent is sought for future paediatric critical care trials, we explored the views and experiences of parents and practitioners involved in the CATheter infections in CHildren (CATCH) trial, which allowed for deferred consent in certain circumstances.

Design: Mixed method survey, interview and focus group study.

Participants: 275 parents completed a questionnaire; 20 families participated in an interview (18 mothers, 5 fathers). 17 CATCH practitioners participated in one of four focus groups (10 nurses, 3 doctors and 4 clinical trial unit staff).

Setting: 12 UK children's hospitals.

Results: Some parents were momentarily shocked or angered to discover that their child had or could have been entered into CATCH without their prior consent. Although these feelings resolved after the reasons why consent needed to be deferred were explained and that the CATCH interventions were already used in clinical care. Prior to seeking deferred consent for the first few times, CATCH practitioners were apprehensive, although their feelings abated with experience of talking to parents about CATCH. Parents reported that their decisions about their child's participation in the trial had been voluntary. However, mistiming the deferred consent discussion had caused distress for some. Practitioners and parents supported the use of deferred consent in CATCH and in future trials of interventions already used in clinical care.

Conclusions: Our study provides evidence to support the use of deferred consent in paediatric emergency medicine; it also indicates the crucial importance of practitioner communication and appropriate timing of deferred consent discussions.

Keywords: MEDICAL ETHICS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONNECT parent recruitment process and sample characteristics. CATCH, CATheter infections in CHildren.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONNECT practitioner recruitment process and sample characteristics. CATCH, CATheter infections in Children.

References

    1. Brierley J, Larcher V. Emergency research in children: Options for ethical recruitment. J Med Ethics 2011;37:429–32. 10.1136/jme.2010.040667
    1. European Commission. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official J Eur Communities 2001:0034–44.
    1. Roberts I, Prieto-Merino D, Shakur H et al. . Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet 2011;377:1071–2. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60317-6
    1. Woolfall K, Young B, Frith L et al. . Doing challenging research studies in a patient-centred way: a qualitative study to inform a randomised controlled trial in the paediatric emergency care setting. BMJ Open 2014;4:e005045 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005045
    1. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
    1. Kompanje EO, Maas AR, Menon D et al. . Medical research in emergency research in the European Union member states: tensions between theory and practice. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:496–503. 10.1007/s00134-014-3243-6
    1. Iwanowski P, Budaj A, Czlonkowska A et al. . Informed consent for clinical trials in acute cirinary syndromes and stroke following the European clinical trials directive: investigators’ experiences and attitudes. Trials 2008;9:1–6. 10.1186/1745-6215-9-45
    1. . Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 10: S.I. 2004/1031 2004. (accessed 10 Sept 2015).
    1. . The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) and Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) Regulations 2008 941. 10 2008. (accessed 10 Sept 2015).
    1. Council of the European Union. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing directive 2001/20/EC. Brussels: Council of the European Union, 2013.
    1. Fost N, Robertson JA. Deferring consent with incompetent patients in an intensive care unit. IRB 1980;2:5–6. 10.2307/3564363
    1. Cooke RW. Good practice in consent. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2005;10:63–71. 10.1016/j.siny.2004.09.009
    1. Lecouturier J, Rodgers H, Ford G et al. . Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views. BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:9 10.1186/1472-6939-9-9
    1. Farnell SM. Medical research: why trouble the patient for informed consent? Med Pediatr Oncol 2002;39:207–9. 10.1002/mpo.10109
    1. Eucker SA, Barrett TW, Schriger DL. Are two drugs better than one for acute agitation? A discussion on black box warnings, waiver of informed consent, and the ethics of enrolling impaired subjects in clinical trials. Ann Emerg Med 2013;61:82–3. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.10.040
    1. Vanpee D, Gillet JB, Dupuis M. Clinical trials in an emergency setting: implications from the fifth version of the Declaration of Helsinki. J Emerg Med 2004;26:127–31. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2003.04.007
    1. Maitland K, Molyyneux S, Boga M et al. . Use of deferred consent for severely ill children in a multi-centre phase III trial. Trials 2011;12:90 10.1186/1745-6215-12-90
    1. Eltorki M, Uleryk E, Freedman SB. Waiver of informed consent in pediatric resuscitation research: a systematic review. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:822–34. 10.1111/acem.12180
    1. Gamble C, Nadel S, Snape D et al. . What parents of children who have received emergency care think about deferring consent in randomised trials of emergency treatments: postal survey. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e35982 10.1371/journal.pone.0035982
    1. Molyneux S, Njue M, Boga M et al. . ‘The words will pass with the blowing wind’: staff and parent views of the deferred consent process, with prior assent, used in an emergency fluids trial in two African hospitals. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e54894 10.1371/journal.pone.0054894
    1. Mok Q, Gilbert R. Interventions to reduce central venous catheter-associated infections in children: which ones are beneficial? Intensive Care Med 2011;37:566–8. 10.1007/s00134-011-2135-2
    1. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C et al. . How experience makes a difference: Practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013;14:45 10.1186/1472-6939-14-45
    1. Miller VA, Ittenbach RF, Harris D et al. . The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent. Med Decis Making 2011;31:730–41. 10.1177/0272989X11398666
    1. Cresswell JW. Research design: qualitative and quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage Publications, 2009.
    1. Bryman A. Quality and quantity in social research. London: Routledge, 1988.
    1. Cresswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications, 2007.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57. 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
    1. Musschenga AW. Empirical ethics, context sensitivity, and contextualism. J Med Philos 2005;30:467–90. 10.1080/03605310500253030
    1. Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50
    1. Adamson J. Combined qualitative and quantitative designs. In: Bowling A, Ebrahim S, eds. Handbook of health research methods Investigation, measurement and analysis. Oxford: Open University Press; 2005:230–45.
    1. Glaser B. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965;12:436–45. 10.2307/798843
    1. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded thoery. 2nd edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
    1. Stiles WB. Evaluating qualitative research. Evid Based Ment Health 1999;2:99–101. 10.1136/ebmh.2.4.99
    1. Morgan DL. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 2007;1:48–76. 10.1177/2345678906292462
    1. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:375–87. 10.1080/13645570500402447
    1. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality Quantity 2002;36:391–409. 10.1023/A:1020909529486
    1. Erzberger C, Kelle U. Making inferences in mixed methods: the rules of integration. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, eds. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. London: Sage Publications, 2003:457–88.
    1. Frith L. Symbiotic empirical ethics: a practical methodology. Bioethics 2012;26:198–206. 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01843.x
    1. CTRC. Catheter infections in children (CATCH) protocol V4.0. Liverpool, 2011.
    1. Helsinki WEU-Do. World medical association declaration of Helsinki. In: Assembly WG, ed. Fortaleza, Brazil, 2013. (accessed 10 Sept 2015).
    1. McIntosh N, Bates P, Brykczynska G. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of medical research involving children. Royal College of Paediatrics, child health: ethics advisory committee. Arch Dis Child 2000;82:177–82. 10.1136/adc.82.2.177
    1. Nelson RM, Beauchamp T, Miller VA et al. . The concept of voluntary consent. Am J Bioeth 2011;11:6–16. 10.1080/15265161.2011.583318
    1. Hammami MM, Al-Jawarneh Y, Hammami MB et al. . Information disclosure in clinical informed consent: “reasonable” patient's perception of norm in high-context communication culture. BMC Med Ethics 2014;15:3 10.1186/1472-6939-15-3
    1. O'Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
    1. Hammami MM, Al-Gaai EA, Al-Jawarneh Y et al. . Patients’ perceived purpose of clinical informed consent: Mill's individual autonomy model is preferred. BMC Med Ethics 2014;15:2 10.1186/1472-6939-15-2
    1. Woolfall K, Shilling V, Hickey H et al. . Parents’ agendas in paediatric clinical trial recruitment are different from researchers’ and often remain unvoiced: a qualitative study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e67352 10.1371/journal.pone.0067352
    1. Gillies K, Entwistle VA. Supporting positive experiences and sustained participation in clinical trials: looking beyond information provision. J Med Ethics 2012;38:751–6. 10.1136/medethics-2011-100059
    1. Caldwell PH, Butow PN, Craig JC. Parents’ attitudes to children's participation in randomized controlled trials. J Pediatr 2003;142:554–9. 10.1067/mpd.2003.192
    1. Harron K, Woolfall K, Dwan K et al. . Deferred Consent in Randomized Controlled Trials in Emergency Care Settings. Pediatrics 2015. In press.
    1. Little RJ, D'Agostino R, Cohen ML et al. . The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1355–60. 10.1056/NEJMsr1203730
    1. May GS, DeMets DL, Friedman LM et al. . The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis. Circulation 1981;64:669–73. 10.1161/01.CIR.64.4.669
    1. Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE, Jackson CJ et al. . Beyond “misunderstanding”: written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2212–22. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.010
    1. Austin JK. Ethical issues related to the increased emphasis on children participating in research. Chronic Illn 2006;2:181–2. 10.1177/17423953060020031101
    1. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD et al. . Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358:1772–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06805-2
    1. Chappuy H, Baruchel A, Leverger G et al. . Parental comprehension and satisfaction in informed consent in paediatric clinical trials: a prospective study on childhood leukaemia. Arch Dis Child 2010;95:800–4. 10.1136/adc.2009.180695
    1. Gill D. Ethical principles and operational guidelines for good clinical practice in paediatric research. Recommendations of the Ethics Working Group of the Confederation of European Specialists in Paediatrics (CESP). Eur J Pediatr 2004;163:53–7. 10.1007/s00431-003-1378-5
    1. Gillies K, Huang W, Skea Z et al. . Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation. Trials 2014;15:62 10.1186/1745-6215-15-62
    1. Shilling V, Young B. How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial? BMC Med Ethics 2009;10:1 10.1186/1472-6939-10-1
    1. Kottow M. The battering of informed consent. J Med Ethics 2004;30:565–9. 10.1136/jme.2003.002949
    1. O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ et al. . What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open 2013;3:pii: e002889 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002889.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for institutional review boards, clinical investigators, and sponsers. Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research. Rockvile, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, 2013.
    1. Snowdon C, Brocklehurst P, Tasker R et al. . Death, Bereavement and randomised controlled trials (BRACELET): a methodological study of policy and practice in neonatal and paediatric intensive care trials. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1–410. 10.3310/hta18420

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe