Health Systems and Social Science Research Group, Kenya Medical Research Institute-ellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e54894. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054894. Epub 2013 Feb 11.
To document and explore the views and experiences of key stakeholders regarding the consent procedures of an emergency research clinical trial examining immediate fluid resuscitation strategies, and to discuss the implications for similar trials in future.
A social science sub-study of the FEAST (Fluid Expansion As Supportive Therapy) trial. Interviews were held with trial team members (n = 30), health workers (n = 15) and parents (n = 51) from two purposively selected hospitals in Soroti, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya.
Overall, deferred consent with prior assent was seen by staff and parents as having the potential to protect the interests of both patients and researchers, and to avoid delays in starting treatment. An important challenge is that the validity of verbal assent is undermined when inadequate initial information is poorly understood. This concern needs to be balanced against the possibility that full prior consent on admission potentially causes harm through introducing delays. Full prior consent also potentially imposes worries on parents that clinicians are uncertain about how to proceed and that clinicians want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the child's outcome (some parents' interpretation of the need for signed consent). Voluntariness is clearly compromised for both verbal assent and full prior consent in a context of such vulnerability and stress. Further challenges in obtaining verbal assent were: what to do in the absence of the household decision-maker (often the father); and how medical staff handle parents not giving a clear agreement or refusal.
While the challenges identified are faced in all research in low-income settings, they are magnified for emergency trials by the urgency of decision making and treatment needs. Consent options will need to be tailored to particular studies and settings, and might best be informed by consultation with staff members and community representatives using a deliberative approach.
记录和探讨主要利益相关者对一项紧急研究临床试验的同意程序的看法和经验,该试验研究立即进行液体复苏策略,并讨论对未来类似试验的影响。
FEAST(液体扩张作为支持性治疗)试验的社会科学子研究。在乌干达 Soroti 和肯尼亚 Kilifi 两所专门选定的医院中,对试验团队成员(n=30)、卫生工作者(n=15)和家长(n=51)进行了访谈。
总体而言,工作人员和家长认为,延迟同意并事先同意有可能保护患者和研究人员的利益,并避免延迟开始治疗。一个重要的挑战是,当初步信息理解不足时,口头同意的有效性就会受到损害。这种担忧需要与完全事先同意入院可能通过引入延迟而造成伤害的可能性相平衡。完全事先同意也可能会给父母带来担忧,即临床医生对如何进行治疗感到不确定,并且临床医生希望免除自己对孩子结果的任何责任(一些父母对签署同意书的必要性的解释)。在如此脆弱和紧张的情况下,口头同意和完全事先同意的自愿性显然都受到了损害。在获得口头同意方面还存在其他挑战:在没有家庭决策者(通常是父亲)的情况下该怎么办;以及医务人员如何处理父母没有明确同意或拒绝的情况。
虽然在所有低收入环境下的研究中都面临着这些挑战,但在紧急试验中,由于决策和治疗需求的紧迫性,这些挑战更加突出。同意选项将需要根据特定的研究和环境进行调整,并且最好通过使用审议方法与工作人员和社区代表进行协商来获得信息。