Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study
Introduction:Research in intensive care is necessary for the continuing advancement of patient care. In research, informed consent is considered essential for patient protection. In intensive care, the modalities of informed consent are currently being debated by both lawyers and the medical communi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of medical ethics 2009-11, Vol.35 (11), p.709-712 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 712 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 709 |
| container_title | Journal of medical ethics |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Chenaud, C Merlani, P Verdon, M Ricou, B |
| description | Introduction:Research in intensive care is necessary for the continuing advancement of patient care. In research, informed consent is considered essential for patient protection. In intensive care, the modalities of informed consent are currently being debated by both lawyers and the medical community. The preferences of patients and their relatives regarding informed consent for research in intensive care have never been assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate these preferences.Methods:A pilot study conducted via a questionnaire mailed to patients and relatives who had experienced intensive care.Results:52/400 patient–relative pairs completed the questionnaire fully. If the patient was imagined to be conscious, 75% of patients and 77% of relatives believed the patient should be the person who should consent. If the patient was imagined to be unconscious, 72% of patients and 67% of relatives thought that a relative should be asked to consent. The majority of responders thought that at least two persons should consent. Their answers were concordant in 61–80% of cases, depending on the question. Patients (25%) and relatives (30%) did not feel free in their decision to participate in a study. The majority of patients and relatives wanted to consent by writing, indifferently with or without a witness.Conclusion:Patients are willing to decide on their own participation in a study. If they lose their capacity to decide for themselves, in the great majority of cases, they would agree to delegate the decision to a relative. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1136/jme.2008.028068 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733704334</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>20696681</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20696681</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b419t-8f21c6cb1ee91432c5ce7ce253789b750bd67169b048153ca59c11d34c3f939b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkduL1DAUxoMo7rj67JMS8EEQOptLm8u-iIyOCoMO4uUxpOkp09o2Y5Iu7n9vhg4r-GJeTsj3Ox8n50PoKSVrSrm46kdYM0LUmjBFhLqHVrSUvChZJe-jFeFEFEIRcoEexdiTfJjSD9EF1UoRSckKxR8Hj-PBz0ODnZ8iTAm3PuAAEWxwB9xN2DbzkPIlwRS7G8DOBniN9wFaCDA5iNi3-GhTl5sjtlOD0wG6k8eQH28gXmOLj93gE45pbm4fowetHSI8OddL9G377uvmQ7H7_P7j5s2uqEuqU6FaRp1wNQXQtOTMVQ6kA1ZxqXQtK1I3QlKha1IqWnFnK-0obXjpeKu5rvklern4HoP_NUNMZuyig2GwE_g5Gsm5JCXnZSZf_EP2fg5THs5QqShRXDGdqauFcsHHmL9vjqEbbbg1lJhTHCbHYU5xmCWO3PH87DvXIzR_-fP-M_BsAfqYfLjTGRFaCEWzXix6FxP8vtNt-GmE5LIyn75vzJfdfruXb6nZZv7Vwtdj_9_p_gBbc6ui</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781083829</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Chenaud, C ; Merlani, P ; Verdon, M ; Ricou, B</creator><creatorcontrib>Chenaud, C ; Merlani, P ; Verdon, M ; Ricou, B</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction:Research in intensive care is necessary for the continuing advancement of patient care. In research, informed consent is considered essential for patient protection. In intensive care, the modalities of informed consent are currently being debated by both lawyers and the medical community. The preferences of patients and their relatives regarding informed consent for research in intensive care have never been assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate these preferences.Methods:A pilot study conducted via a questionnaire mailed to patients and relatives who had experienced intensive care.Results:52/400 patient–relative pairs completed the questionnaire fully. If the patient was imagined to be conscious, 75% of patients and 77% of relatives believed the patient should be the person who should consent. If the patient was imagined to be unconscious, 72% of patients and 67% of relatives thought that a relative should be asked to consent. The majority of responders thought that at least two persons should consent. Their answers were concordant in 61–80% of cases, depending on the question. Patients (25%) and relatives (30%) did not feel free in their decision to participate in a study. The majority of patients and relatives wanted to consent by writing, indifferently with or without a witness.Conclusion:Patients are willing to decide on their own participation in a study. If they lose their capacity to decide for themselves, in the great majority of cases, they would agree to delegate the decision to a relative.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-6800</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1473-4257</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.028068</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19880710</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JMETDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Biomedical Research - ethics ; Critical care ; Critical Care - ethics ; Decision Making - ethics ; Education ; Educational levels ; Ethics committees ; Female ; Gender ; Humans ; Informed consent ; Informed Consent - ethics ; Intensive care ; Intensive care units ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Patient Participation ; Patients ; Pilot Projects ; Population ; Professional-Family Relations - ethics ; Questionnaires ; Research ethics ; Secondary schools ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Third-Party Consent ; Transponders ; Universities</subject><ispartof>Journal of medical ethics, 2009-11, Vol.35 (11), p.709-712</ispartof><rights>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2009 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and the Institute of Medical Ethics</rights><rights>Copyright: 2009 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b419t-8f21c6cb1ee91432c5ce7ce253789b750bd67169b048153ca59c11d34c3f939b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b419t-8f21c6cb1ee91432c5ce7ce253789b750bd67169b048153ca59c11d34c3f939b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jme.bmj.com/content/35/11/709.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jme.bmj.com/content/35/11/709.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,314,780,784,803,3195,23570,27923,27924,58016,58249,77471,77502</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19880710$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chenaud, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merlani, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verdon, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ricou, B</creatorcontrib><title>Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study</title><title>Journal of medical ethics</title><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><description>Introduction:Research in intensive care is necessary for the continuing advancement of patient care. In research, informed consent is considered essential for patient protection. In intensive care, the modalities of informed consent are currently being debated by both lawyers and the medical community. The preferences of patients and their relatives regarding informed consent for research in intensive care have never been assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate these preferences.Methods:A pilot study conducted via a questionnaire mailed to patients and relatives who had experienced intensive care.Results:52/400 patient–relative pairs completed the questionnaire fully. If the patient was imagined to be conscious, 75% of patients and 77% of relatives believed the patient should be the person who should consent. If the patient was imagined to be unconscious, 72% of patients and 67% of relatives thought that a relative should be asked to consent. The majority of responders thought that at least two persons should consent. Their answers were concordant in 61–80% of cases, depending on the question. Patients (25%) and relatives (30%) did not feel free in their decision to participate in a study. The majority of patients and relatives wanted to consent by writing, indifferently with or without a witness.Conclusion:Patients are willing to decide on their own participation in a study. If they lose their capacity to decide for themselves, in the great majority of cases, they would agree to delegate the decision to a relative.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Biomedical Research - ethics</subject><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Critical Care - ethics</subject><subject>Decision Making - ethics</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational levels</subject><subject>Ethics committees</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Informed Consent - ethics</subject><subject>Intensive care</subject><subject>Intensive care units</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patient Participation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Professional-Family Relations - ethics</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Research ethics</subject><subject>Secondary schools</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Third-Party Consent</subject><subject>Transponders</subject><subject>Universities</subject><issn>0306-6800</issn><issn>1473-4257</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkduL1DAUxoMo7rj67JMS8EEQOptLm8u-iIyOCoMO4uUxpOkp09o2Y5Iu7n9vhg4r-GJeTsj3Ox8n50PoKSVrSrm46kdYM0LUmjBFhLqHVrSUvChZJe-jFeFEFEIRcoEexdiTfJjSD9EF1UoRSckKxR8Hj-PBz0ODnZ8iTAm3PuAAEWxwB9xN2DbzkPIlwRS7G8DOBniN9wFaCDA5iNi3-GhTl5sjtlOD0wG6k8eQH28gXmOLj93gE45pbm4fowetHSI8OddL9G377uvmQ7H7_P7j5s2uqEuqU6FaRp1wNQXQtOTMVQ6kA1ZxqXQtK1I3QlKha1IqWnFnK-0obXjpeKu5rvklern4HoP_NUNMZuyig2GwE_g5Gsm5JCXnZSZf_EP2fg5THs5QqShRXDGdqauFcsHHmL9vjqEbbbg1lJhTHCbHYU5xmCWO3PH87DvXIzR_-fP-M_BsAfqYfLjTGRFaCEWzXix6FxP8vtNt-GmE5LIyn75vzJfdfruXb6nZZv7Vwtdj_9_p_gBbc6ui</recordid><startdate>200911</startdate><enddate>200911</enddate><creator>Chenaud, C</creator><creator>Merlani, P</creator><creator>Verdon, M</creator><creator>Ricou, B</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</general><general>Institute of Medical Ethics and BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200911</creationdate><title>Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study</title><author>Chenaud, C ; Merlani, P ; Verdon, M ; Ricou, B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b419t-8f21c6cb1ee91432c5ce7ce253789b750bd67169b048153ca59c11d34c3f939b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Biomedical Research - ethics</topic><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Critical Care - ethics</topic><topic>Decision Making - ethics</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational levels</topic><topic>Ethics committees</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Informed Consent - ethics</topic><topic>Intensive care</topic><topic>Intensive care units</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patient Participation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Professional-Family Relations - ethics</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Research ethics</topic><topic>Secondary schools</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Third-Party Consent</topic><topic>Transponders</topic><topic>Universities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chenaud, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Merlani, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verdon, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ricou, B</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chenaud, C</au><au>Merlani, P</au><au>Verdon, M</au><au>Ricou, B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of medical ethics</jtitle><addtitle>J Med Ethics</addtitle><date>2009-11</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>709</spage><epage>712</epage><pages>709-712</pages><issn>0306-6800</issn><eissn>1473-4257</eissn><coden>JMETDR</coden><abstract>Introduction:Research in intensive care is necessary for the continuing advancement of patient care. In research, informed consent is considered essential for patient protection. In intensive care, the modalities of informed consent are currently being debated by both lawyers and the medical community. The preferences of patients and their relatives regarding informed consent for research in intensive care have never been assessed. The aim of this study was to investigate these preferences.Methods:A pilot study conducted via a questionnaire mailed to patients and relatives who had experienced intensive care.Results:52/400 patient–relative pairs completed the questionnaire fully. If the patient was imagined to be conscious, 75% of patients and 77% of relatives believed the patient should be the person who should consent. If the patient was imagined to be unconscious, 72% of patients and 67% of relatives thought that a relative should be asked to consent. The majority of responders thought that at least two persons should consent. Their answers were concordant in 61–80% of cases, depending on the question. Patients (25%) and relatives (30%) did not feel free in their decision to participate in a study. The majority of patients and relatives wanted to consent by writing, indifferently with or without a witness.Conclusion:Patients are willing to decide on their own participation in a study. If they lose their capacity to decide for themselves, in the great majority of cases, they would agree to delegate the decision to a relative.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</pub><pmid>19880710</pmid><doi>10.1136/jme.2008.028068</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0306-6800 |
| ispartof | Journal of medical ethics, 2009-11, Vol.35 (11), p.709-712 |
| issn | 0306-6800 1473-4257 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733704334 |
| source | MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Bioethics Biomedical Research - ethics Critical care Critical Care - ethics Decision Making - ethics Education Educational levels Ethics committees Female Gender Humans Informed consent Informed Consent - ethics Intensive care Intensive care units Male Middle Aged Patient Participation Patients Pilot Projects Population Professional-Family Relations - ethics Questionnaires Research ethics Secondary schools Surveys and Questionnaires Third-Party Consent Transponders Universities |
| title | Who should consent for research in adult intensive care? Preferences of patients and their relatives: a pilot study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T18%3A53%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Who%20should%20consent%20for%20research%20in%20adult%20intensive%20care?%20Preferences%20of%20patients%20and%20their%20relatives:%20a%20pilot%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20medical%20ethics&rft.au=Chenaud,%20C&rft.date=2009-11&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=709&rft.epage=712&rft.pages=709-712&rft.issn=0306-6800&rft.eissn=1473-4257&rft.coden=JMETDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jme.2008.028068&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E20696681%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781083829&rft_id=info:pmid/19880710&rft_jstor_id=20696681&rfr_iscdi=true |