Surrogate consent for critical care research: exploratory study on public perception and influences on recruitment

Article English OPEN
Lim, Daphne AFN ; Chan, Moon Fai ; Childs, Charmaine (2013)
  • Publisher: BioMed Central
  • Journal: Critical Care, volume 17, issue 1, pages R5-R5 (issn: 1364-8535, eissn: 1466-609X)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1186/cc11927, pmc: PMC4057109
  • Subject: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine | Research

Introduction Critical Care research involves an increasing level of technical and clinical interventions for the unconscious patient. If the general public has a negative (unfavourable) view of surrogate consent, low recruitment rates are likely. Results bias will be introduced if study populations are small, hindering knowledge generation and transfer through research. In the rapidly expanding healthcare industry of South East Asia, opportunities for critical care research will grow given a positive willingness (favourability) by the general public to act as a surrogate in the consent process when the (unconscious) patient cannot consent for him/herself. Methods To determine public willingness for surrogate consent, a quantitative cross-sectional study was undertaken at a University Teaching Hospital in South East Asia during a three month interval. Four hypothetical critical care research scenarios were presented and responses from the public were analysed using a three-part questionnaire. Results Three hundred and five members of the public were recruited. In general, participants had a positive view of research. The level of education was significantly associated with a person's views about research especially in studies regarded as high risk. For low risk studies, a person's perception of research and willingness to be recruited to a study in the event that they were the (unconscious) patient, was the same whether they were the study subject or the person (legally acceptable representative) giving surrogate consent' on behalf of another (spouse, parent, child). Across all study scenarios, 60-80% of the public preferred to be approached by doctors to discuss the surrogate consent process. Conclusion Given the hypothetical scenarios presented in this study, the odds of a person having a positive view and willingness to be consented to a critical care research study on the advice of another (surrogate consent) was greater than for those who had a negative or unfavourable view. Nurses may be disadvantaged in leading on the recruitment process due to a preference for information to be delivered by medically qualified clinicians. In the setting of South East Asia, cultural attitudes to nurse-led research in critical care must be taken in to consideration in the multidisciplinary approaches to building the research team.
  • References (17)
    17 references, page 1 of 2

    1. Lemaire F, Bion J, Blanco J, Damas P, Druml C, Falke K, Kesecioglu J, Larsson A, Mancebo J, Matamas D, Pesenti A, Pimentel J, Ranieri M: The European Union Directive on Clinical Research: Present status of implementation in EU member states' legislations with regard to the incompetent patients. Intensive Care Med 2005, 31:476-479.

    2. Coppolino M, Ackerson L: Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest 2001, 119:603-612.

    3. Perner A, Ibsen M, Bonde J: Attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious intensive care patients. BMC anaesthesiol 2010, 10:6.

    4. Sugarman J, Kass NE, Goodman SN, Perentesis P, Fernandes P, Faden RR: What patients say about medical research. IRB 1998, 20:1-7.

    5. Childs C, Vail A, Leach P, Rainey T, Protheroe R, King AT: Brain temperature and outcome after severe traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 2006, 5:1-5.

    6. Kim SY, Kim HM, McCallum C, Tariot PN: What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research? Neurology 2005, 65:1395-1401.

    7. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.

    8. Majesko A, Hong SY, Weissfeld L, White DB: Identifying family members who may struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker. Crit Care Med 2012, 40:2281-2286.

    9. Baum A, Singer JE, Baum CS: Stress and the environment. J Soc Issues 1981, 37:4-35.

    10. Chlan L, Guttormson J, Tracy MF, Bremer KL: Strategies for overcoming site and recruitment challenges in research studies based in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care 2009, 18:410-417.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark