Risk in Emergency Research Using a Waiver of/Exception from Consent: Implications of a Structured Approach for Institutional Review Board Review
| Abstract | 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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesMichelle H. Biros (2007). Research Without Consent: Exception From and Waiver of Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3).
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).
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).
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).
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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-08Total downloads6 ( #145,458 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 548,984 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
