IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0035982.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Parents of Children Who Have Received Emergency Care Think about Deferring Consent in Randomised Trials of Emergency Treatments: Postal Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Carrol Gamble
  • Simon Nadel
  • Dee Snape
  • Andrew McKay
  • Helen Hickey
  • Paula Williamson
  • Linda Glennie
  • Claire Snowdon
  • Bridget Young

Abstract

Objective: To investigate parents’ views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child’s death. Methods: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child’s death. Results: 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child’s condition had stabilised. In the event of a child’s death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents’ free text responses indicated that the word ‘trial’ held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents’ free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child’s death. Discussion: Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child’s death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Carrol Gamble & Simon Nadel & Dee Snape & Andrew McKay & Helen Hickey & Paula Williamson & Linda Glennie & Claire Snowdon & Bridget Young, 2012. "What Parents of Children Who Have Received Emergency Care Think about Deferring Consent in Randomised Trials of Emergency Treatments: Postal Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-6, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0035982
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035982
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035982&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0035982?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0035982. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.