Risk in Emergency Research Using a Waiver of/Exception from Consent: Implications of a Structured Approach for Institutional Review Board Review
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
OBJECTIVE: To apply component analysis, a structured approach to the ethical analysis of risks and potential benefits in research, to published emergency research using a waiver of/exception from informed consent. The hypothesis was that component analysis could be used with a high degree of interrater reliability, and that the vast majority of emergency research would comply with a minimal-risk threshold. METHODS: A Medline search and manual search were done to identify studies using a waiver of/exception from informed consent published between July 1996 and December 2000. A review panel of physicians and bioethicists independently classified nontherapeutic procedures in each study as minimal risk, probably minimal risk, or probably more than minimal risk. RESULTS: Seventy studies using a waiver of/exception from informed consent were identified. A majority of reviewers classified nontherapeutic procedures in 62 studies (88.6%) as minimal risk. Reviewers classified nontherapeutic procedures in six studies (8.6%) as minimal risk or probably minimal risk. In two studies (2.9%), nontherapeutic procedures were classified as probably more than minimal risk. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.85 to 0.93), indicating very high interrater reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Component analysis can be used with high reliability to review emergency research and may improve the consistency of institutional review board review of emergency research. The vast majority of published emergency research performed using a waiver of/exception from consent complies with a properly-applied minimal-risk threshold. A minimal-risk threshold for nontherapeutic procedures protects subjects better than current U.S. regulations while permitting important emergency research to continue
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Andrew D. McRae & Charles Weijer, Lessons From Everyday Lives: A Moral Justification for Acute Care Research.
Michelle H. Biros (2007). Research Without Consent: Exception From and Waiver of Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):361-369.
Andrew McRae & Charles Weijer, U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and Commentary.
Helen M. Sharp & Robert D. Orr (2004). When "Minimal Risk" Research Yields Clinically-Significant Data, Maybe the Risks Aren't So Minimal. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (2):32-36.
Piotr S. Iwanowski (2007). Informed Consent Procedure for Clinical Trials in Emergency Settings: The Polish Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):333-336.
Carson Strong (2011). Minimal Risk in Research Involving Pregnant Women and Fetuses. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):529-538.
Erwin J. O. Kompanje (2007). No Time to Be Lost! Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):371-381.
K. B. McClure, N. M. Delorio, T. A. Schmidt, G. Chiodo & P. Gorman (2007). A Qualitative Study of Institutional Review Board Members' Experience Reviewing Research Proposals Using Emergency Exception From Informed Consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5):289-293.
Eugenijus Gefenas (2007). Balancing Ethical Principles in Emergency Medicine Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):281-288.
John D. Lantos (2007). Research in Wonderland: Does "Minimal Risk" Mean Whatever an Institutional Review Board Says It Means? American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):11 – 12.
Added to index2010-09-08
Total downloads7 ( #149,786 of 1,089,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,722 of 1,089,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?