The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning From Experience: A Systematic Review of Community Consultation Acceptance Data
Abstract
Study objective Federal regulations permitting an exception from informed consent for research in emergency settings require community consultation before study approval. Rates of acceptance of exception from informed consent in community consultation are often reported, but predictors of acceptance are not well understood, and investigators and institutional review boards struggle to interpret and use acceptance data. Methods We systematically reviewed empirical literature on community consultation for exception from informed consent trials in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. We included peer-reviewed articles reporting acceptance data from community consultation for US exception from informed consent trials. Questions were categorized by enrollment focus (eg, personal enrollment versus more general exception from informed consent acceptance), and observed acceptance was compared across studies. We also compared potential predictors of acceptance, including demographic factors, consultation method, and target community. Results Nine studies (total n=9,036 participants) were included in the final analysis. Personal acceptance of enrollment in the proposed exception from informed consent study ranged from 45% to 93% and clustered in the range of 64% to 80%. Acceptance of the exception from informed consent mechanism in general (without reference to personal inclusion) was lower (35% to 84%) than personal acceptance. The effect of demographic characteristics on…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Indeed, this practice has already been adopted in several fields of research and may comprise patient-centric initiatives such as advocacy group support and involvement, patient advisory panels, and focus groups, interviews with trial participants and staff, questionnaires and Delphi surveys/consensus processes, and consensus meetings. 336 344”
From European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions (2021) · cites this paper as [344]
Citations
Cites
McClure, K. B. (2003) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1197/aemj.10.4.352 · Cited by 110
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Halperin, 2007, Circulation, 116, 1855, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.186661 · DOI
- Dickert, 2007, Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting: lessons from the PolyHeme study, Kennedy Inst Ethics J, 17, 153, 10.1353/ken.2007.0010 · DOI
- Richardson, 2005, Communicating with communities about emergency research, Acad Emerg Med, 12, 1064, 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2005.tb00831.x · DOI
- Dickert, 2014, Community consultation for prehospital research: experiences of study coordinators and principal investigators, Prehosp Emerg Care, 18, 274, 10.3109/10903127.2013.856503 · DOI
- Callaway, 2014, Studying community consultation in exception from informed consent trials, Crit Care Med, 42, 451, 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a51f37 · DOI
- Biros, 2013, Does community consultation matter?, Acad Emerg Med, 20, 104, 10.1111/acem.12044 · DOI
- Deiorio, 2007, Ethics committee experience with emergency exception from informed consent protocols, J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 2, 23, 10.1525/jer.2007.2.3.23 · DOI
- Dickert, 2014, Consulting communities when patients cannot consent: a multicenter study of community consultation for research in emergency settings, Crit Care Med, 42, 272, 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a27759 · DOI
- Contant, 2006, Community consultation in emergency research, Crit Care Med, 34, 2049, 10.1097/01.CCM.0000227649.72651.F1 · DOI
- Nelson, 2008, Community consultation methods in a study using exception to informed consent, Prehosp Emerg Care, 12, 417, 10.1080/10903120802290885 · DOI
- Liberati, 2009, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, J Clin Epidemiol, 62, e1, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · DOI · Paper page
- Biros, 2009, Community attitudes towards emergency research and exception from informed consent, Resuscitation, 80, 1382, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.08.019 · DOI
- Vu, 2012, A targeted approach to community consultation for an exception from informed consent study: more support than willingness to participate, Circulation, 126, A291, 10.1161/circ.126.suppl_21.A291 · DOI
- Kasner, 2011, Community views on neurologic emergency treatment trials, Ann Emerg Med, 57, 346, 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.07.009 · DOI
- Dix, 2004, Implementation of community consultation for waiver of informed consent in emergency research: one institutional review board's experience, J Investig Med, 52, 113, 10.2310/6650.2004.17646 · DOI
- Bulger, 2009, The random dialing survey as a tool for community consultation for research involving the emergency medicine exception from informed consent, Ann Emerg Med, 53, 341, 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.07.021 · DOI
- Sims, 2013, Exception from informed consent for emergency research: consulting the trauma community, J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 74, 157, 10.1097/TA.0b013e318278908a · DOI
- Govindarajan, 2013, Emergency research: using exception from informed consent, evaluation of community consultations, Acad Emerg Med, 20, 98, 10.1111/acem.12039 · DOI
- Longfield, 2008, Community meetings for emergency research community consultation, Crit Care Med, 36, 731, 10.1097/01.CCM.OB013E318161FB82 · DOI
- Dickert, 2013, Enrollment in research under exception from informed consent: the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research (PEER) study, Resuscitation, 84, 1416, 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.04.006 · DOI
- Abboud, 2006, What determines whether patients are willing to participate in resuscitation studies requiring exception from informed consent?, J Med Ethics, 32, 468, 10.1136/jme.2005.012633 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions
Mentzelopoulos, S. D., Couper, K., Voorde, P. V. D., Druwé, P., Blom, M., Perkins, G. D., Lulic, I., Djakow, J., Raffay, V., Lilja, G., et al. (2021) · Resuscitation · doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.017 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Fehr, A. E., Pentz, R. D., & Dickert, N. W.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Venue
- Annals of Emergency Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 162-171.e3
- ISSN
- 0196-0644 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2126311058
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7
- FWCI
- 0.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Emergency Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- exception from informed consent, community consultation, acceptance rate, emergency research, research ethics committees, research ethics, consultation methods, question phrasing
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Health, Emergency Medicine, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Informed Consent, United States, Third-Party Consent, Biomedical Research, Community-Based Participatory Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
