ArticleHeliyon2021
Exception from informed consent for biomedical research in emergency settings: A study from Jordan.
Article in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch conduction in emergency settings is of paramount importance to promote knowledge and experiences related to treating acutely ill patients. However, the complexity of situations creates a considerable ethical challenge facing researchers who basically deal with emergent cases. This study aimed to determine attitudes of healthcare providers (HCPs) towards exception from informed consent (EFIC) and enrollment willingness in emergency research in Jordan.
methodsA quantitative research with face-to-face questionnaire was conducted by an interviewer during 6-month period in 2019. Survey measures included items related to EFIC policy and overall willingness of HCPs to participate or support their family members' participation in emergency research.
resultsA total of 151 HCPs in the emergency departments (EDs) in Jordan was recruited. Positive attitude toward emergency research dominated among participants; about 21.9% of participants reported previous experience in the conduction of emergency research and 12.3% had related publications. Regarding EFIC policy, there was a general consensus of disagreement to most of the examined items. There was a trend for little support of EFIC policy when questioned about the enrollment of family members or public in emergency research, however, the application of EFIC was accepted for self-enrollment of respondents in emergency research. No significant differences (P = 0.37), among participants from different disciplines, were reported regarding the attitudes towards EFIC items or willingness to enroll in emergency research.
conclusionsGenerally, HCPs reported an overall positive support to emergency research despite a consensus of disagreement related to EFIC terms. Therefore, it is recommended to pursue future studies to compare well-informed subjects; recruited from well-developed institutions in regard to emergency research potentials; with the present basic attitudinal surveillance in order to dissipate the effect of such confounder and to get better insight of the actual attitudes related to emergency research and EFIC. In addition, efficient multidisciplinary communication channels between researchers and policy makers can lather the way to collaborative research with simultaneous innovative delivery of quality emergency care.
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.