IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v68y2009i1p183-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients' perceptions of research in emergency settings: A study of survivors of sudden cardiac death

Author

Listed:
  • Dickert, Neal W.
  • Kass, Nancy E.

Abstract

Conditions such as stroke, sudden cardiac death, and major traumatic injury are major causes of morbidity and mortality, and there is a need for clinical research to improve treatment for these conditions. However, because informed consent is often impossible, research in these situations poses ethical concerns. Despite growing literature on the ethics of emergency research, little is known about the views of relevant patient populations regarding research in emergency settings conducted under an exception from informed consent (EFIC). In this qualitative study, survivors of sudden cardiac death (SCD) - recruited from an outpatient cardiology clinic in late 2005 - were asked their views on scenarios representing different types of EFIC research. Patients were generally accepting of such research, more than previous studies would have predicted. Their concerns focused primarily on study risks and benefits and less on waiving consent or randomization. EFIC research is of international importance and ethical controversy. This study represents the first attempt to assess views of SCD survivors on this type of research and one of the first to assess patients' views in-depth. Findings indicate broad acceptance of EFIC research among this population and re-focus discussion on what risks are reasonable for non-autonomous subjects. The study also demonstrates potential for valuable input from patients regarding complicated and ethically challenging issues using a method that allows them to develop opinions on unfamiliar issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Dickert, Neal W. & Kass, Nancy E., 2009. "Patients' perceptions of research in emergency settings: A study of survivors of sudden cardiac death," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 183-191, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:68:y:2009:i:1:p:183-191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(08)00522-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robinson, Elizabeth J. & Kerr, Cicely & Stevens, Andrew & Lilford, Richard & Braunholtz, David & Edwards, Sarah, 2004. "Lay conceptions of the ethical and scientific justifications for random allocation in clinical trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 811-824, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knight, Lynn Valerie & Mattick, Karen, 2006. "'When I first came here, I thought medicine was black and white': Making sense of medical students' ways of knowing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1084-1096, August.
    2. Lowton, Karen, 2005. "Trials and tribulations: Understanding motivations for clinical research participation amongst adults with cystic fibrosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1854-1865, October.
    3. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:68:y:2009:i:1:p:183-191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.