ArticleJAMA network open2026
Public Acceptance of Emergency Research Without Prior Consent in Stroke.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: When prospective informed consent is not feasible in time-sensitive emergencies, such as hyperacute ischemic stroke, international ethics guidance recognizes that enrollment without prior consent may be permissible. Little is known about public acceptance of emergency research without prospective consent (ERWPC) in countries lacking established pathways. Objectives: To estimate public acceptance of ERWPC for hyperacute ischemic stroke, to identify factors associated with ERWPC acceptance, and to compare these factors with those associated with willingness to participate in a standard stroke randomized clinical trial (RCT) requiring prospective informed consent. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted in 2024 using hypothetical hyperacute stroke RCT scenarios. A commercial opt-in panel recruited adults aged 20 to 79 years residing in Japan, with equal allocation across age-by-sex strata. Participants completed survey components, including 8 conjoint scenarios with varying effectiveness, adverse event risk, and consent modality, and rated their willingness to join a standard RCT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ERWPC acceptance, defined as selecting willing or rather willing to participate in at least 1 scenario in a hypothetical trial without prospective consent. The secondary outcome was willingness to participate in a standard RCT. Additional measures included conjoint utilities, value domain scores, decision style, and factors associated with both primary and secondary outcomes using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 1000 respondents (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [15.6] years; 500 females [50.0%]), 605 (60.5%) accepted ERWPC in at least 1 scenario, whereas 334 (33.4%) were willing to join a standard RCT. Among those unwilling to join the standard RCT (n = 666), 295 (44.3%) accepted ERWPC. ERWPC acceptance was associated with clinical trial awareness (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.34-2.00; P < .001), prior research participation (AOR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.23-7.24; P = .02), preference for higher effectiveness (AOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.17-3.04; P = .01), tolerance for nonstandard consent (AOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.60; P < .001), and lower likelihood of consistent chooser status (AOR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.16-0.33; P < .001). In contrast, willingness to join a standard RCT was associated with arrhythmia (AOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.04-4.48; P = .04) and dyslipidemia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.02-3.16; P = .04), awareness of clinical trials (AOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.69-2.61; P < .001), and effectiveness utility (AOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.14; P = .046) but not informed consent utility. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, ERWPC acceptance was substantial and associated with benefit-risk considerations and research familiarity. Differences in factors associated with ERWPC acceptance and standard RCT willingness suggest that emergency research responses cannot be attributed to general attitudes toward RCT participation.
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.