» Articles » PMID: 26384724

How Parents and Practitioners Experience Research Without Prior Consent (deferred Consent) for Emergency Research Involving Children with Life Threatening Conditions: a Mixed Method Study

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2015 Sep 20
PMID 26384724
Citations 56
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Alternatives to prospective informed consent to enable children with life-threatening conditions to be entered into trials of emergency treatments are needed. Across Europe, a process called deferred consent has been developed as an alternative. Little is known about the views and experiences of those with first-hand experience of this controversial consent process. To inform how consent is sought for future paediatric critical care trials, we explored the views and experiences of parents and practitioners involved in the CATheter infections in CHildren (CATCH) trial, which allowed for deferred consent in certain circumstances.

Design: Mixed method survey, interview and focus group study.

Participants: 275 parents completed a questionnaire; 20 families participated in an interview (18 mothers, 5 fathers). 17 CATCH practitioners participated in one of four focus groups (10 nurses, 3 doctors and 4 clinical trial unit staff).

Setting: 12 UK children's hospitals.

Results: Some parents were momentarily shocked or angered to discover that their child had or could have been entered into CATCH without their prior consent. Although these feelings resolved after the reasons why consent needed to be deferred were explained and that the CATCH interventions were already used in clinical care. Prior to seeking deferred consent for the first few times, CATCH practitioners were apprehensive, although their feelings abated with experience of talking to parents about CATCH. Parents reported that their decisions about their child's participation in the trial had been voluntary. However, mistiming the deferred consent discussion had caused distress for some. Practitioners and parents supported the use of deferred consent in CATCH and in future trials of interventions already used in clinical care.

Conclusions: Our study provides evidence to support the use of deferred consent in paediatric emergency medicine; it also indicates the crucial importance of practitioner communication and appropriate timing of deferred consent discussions.

Citing Articles

Developing an adaptive paediatric intensive care unit platform trial with key stakeholders: a qualitative study.

Mitchell T, Menzies J, Ramnarayan P, Gould D, Deja E, Marsh S BMJ Open. 2025; 15(1):e085142.

PMID: 39773799 PMC: 11749188. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085142.


A survey of caregiver preferences regarding research participation in the paediatric emergency department.

Ma K, Rajagopal M, Stang A, Yaskina M, Freedman S, Lerman B Paediatr Child Health. 2024; 29(7):429-433.

PMID: 39677386 PMC: 11638097. DOI: 10.1093/pch/pxad075.


Timing of Stoma Closure in Neonates: the ToSCiN mixed-methods study.

Lansdale N, Woolfall K, Deja E, Mitchell T, Singhal G, Goldacre R Health Technol Assess. 2024; 28(71):1-130.

PMID: 39487601 PMC: 11590118. DOI: 10.3310/JFBC1893.


Exploring communication preferences and risk thresholds of clinicians and parents of febrile infants under 90 days presenting to the emergency department: a qualitative study.

Wilson K, Umana E, McCleary D, Waterfield T, Woolfall K Arch Dis Child. 2024; 109(11):886-893.

PMID: 38986575 PMC: 11503189. DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2023-326727.


HAP-FAST: a feasibility study incorporating qualitative, mechanistic and costing sub-studies alongside a randomised pilot trial comparing chest x-ray to low-dose CT scan and empirical antibiotics to antibiotics guided by the BIOFIRE® FILM ARRAY®....

Shafiqa N, Aston S, Howard A, Turtle L, Abrams S, Young B BMJ Open. 2024; 14(7):e088490.

PMID: 38964799 PMC: 11227820. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088490.


References
1.
Farnell S . Medical research: why trouble the patient for informed consent?. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2002; 39(3):207-9; discussion 210-1. DOI: 10.1002/mpo.10109. View

2.
Lecouturier J, Rodgers H, Ford G, Rapley T, Stobbart L, Louw S . Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views. BMC Med Ethics. 2008; 9:9. PMC: 2390563. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-9. View

3.
Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft R, Jackson C, Tobin M, Kivits J, Burton P . Beyond "misunderstanding": written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65(11):2212-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.010. View

4.
Roberts I, Prieto-Merino D, Shakur H, Chalmers I, Nicholl J . Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet. 2011; 377(9771):1071-2. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60317-6. View

5.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-57. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. View