ArticleResuscitation2009
Community attitudes towards emergency research and exception from informed consent.
Article in Resuscitation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Views on consent approaches used in emergency and critical care research: a rapid, systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Public Approval of Exception From Informed Consent in Emergency Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Community Consultation Surveys.JAMA network open · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Deferred Consent in an Acute Stroke Trial from a Patient, Proxy, and Physician Perspective: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Neurocritical care · 2022Trial
- Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial.BMC emergency medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Patients' perspectives of enrollment in research without consent: the patients' experiences in emergency research-progesterone for the treatment of traumatic brain injury study.Critical care medicine · 2015Trial
- Public Acceptance of Emergency Research Without Prior Consent in Stroke.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Social and demographic predictors of willingness to participate in an exception from informed consent trial.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Exception From Informed Consent Community Consultation Surveys-Do Respondent Characteristics Accurately Reflect Targeted Communities?Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Community Acceptance of a Pediatric Prehospital Exception From Informed Consent Trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Public support for and concerns regarding pediatric dose optimization for seizures in emergency medical services: An exception from informed consent (EFIC) trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024Article
- The acceptability of delayed consent for prehospital emergency care research in the Western Cape province of South Africa.PloS one · 2022Article
- Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2021Review
- [Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021Review
- Understanding preferences regarding consent for pragmatic trials in acute care.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2018Article
- Community Consultation for Planned Emergent Use Research: Experiences From an Academic Medical Center.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Qualitative evaluation of a deferred consent process in paediatric emergency research: a PREDICT study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- An Alternative Consent Process for Minimal Risk Research in the ICU.Critical care medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine public attitudes towards emergency research, exception from informed consent (EFIC) and a specific proposed clinical trial using EFIC.
methodsAs part of a planned community consultation activity, a survey was conducted at a popular public venue. Participants answered demographic questions and then were asked their opinions on specifically described consent circumstances in emergency research, including the proposed EFIC trial. Multiple logistic and linear regression were used to determine respondent characteristics associated with specific attitudes.
results1901 surveys were completed. The majority of respondents supported emergency research (88%) and the concept of surrogate consent by a legally authorized representative (78%). The concept of EFIC was less well supported (35%) but the application of EFIC was more accepted, especially when EFIC was applied to the respondent themselves (51%). The community believed the proposed EFIC study was acceptable (82%); a minority had concerns but most were related to patient safety and not to EFIC. Respondents with less education and lower incomes were less likely to express opinions about the consent and research concepts described.
conclusionsEmergency research and the proposed EFIC trial is supported in this community. The concept of EFIC is less well supported but is more acceptable when a specific trial is described or when respondents consider EFIC for themselves. Specific respondent characteristics are associated with attitudes about research; this can assist in development of meaningful community consultation activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.