IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0236675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intensive care unit patients’ opinion on enrollment in clinical research: A multicenter survey

Author

Listed:
  • Flavia Julie do Amaral Pfeilsticker
  • Carolina Aguiar Sant Anna Siqueri
  • Niklas Soderberg Campos
  • Fernanda Guimarães Aguiar
  • Maria Laura Romagnoli
  • Renato Carneiro de Freitas Chaves
  • Carolina Scoqui Guimarães
  • Adriano José Pereira
  • Ricardo Luiz Cordioli
  • Ary Serpa Neto
  • Murillo Santucci Cesar Assuncão
  • Thiago Domingos Corrêa

Abstract

Background: In most emergency situations or severe illness, patients are unable to consent for clinical trial enrollment. In such circumstances, the decision about whether to participate in a scientific study or not is made by a legally designated representative. Objective: To address the willingness of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to be enrolled in a scientific study as volunteers, and to assess the agreement between patients’ and their legal representatives’ opinion concerning enrollment in a scientific study. Methods: This survey was conducted in two hospitals in São Paulo, Brazil. Patients (≥18 years) with preserved cognitive functions accompanied by a surrogate admitted to the ICU were eligible for this study. A survey containing 28 questions for patients and 8 questions for surrogates was applied within the first 48h from ICU admission. The survey for patients comprised three sections: demographic characteristics, opinion about participation in clinical research and knowledge about the importance of research. The survey for legal representatives contained two sections: demographic characteristics and assessment of legal representatives’ opinion in authorizing patients to be enrolled in research. Results: Between January 2017 and May 2018, 208 pairs of ICU patients and their respective legal representatives answered the survey. Out of 208 ICU patients answering the survey, 73.6% (153/208) were willing to be enrolled in the study as volunteers. Of those patients, 65.1% (97/149) would continue participating in a research even if their legal representative did not support their enrollment. Agreement between patients’ and surrogates’ opinion concerning participation was poor [Kappa = 0.11 (IC95% -0.02 to 0.25)]. If a consent for study participation had been obtained, 69.1% (103/149) of patients would continue participating in the study until its conclusion, and 23.5% (35/149) would allow researchers to use data collected to date, but would withdraw from the study on that occasion. Conclusion: The majority of patients admitted to the ICU were willing to be enrolled in a scientific study as volunteers, also after a deferred informed consent procedure has been used. Nevertheless, contradictory opinions between patients and their and their legal representatives’ concerning enrollment in a scientific study were often observed.

Suggested Citation

  • Flavia Julie do Amaral Pfeilsticker & Carolina Aguiar Sant Anna Siqueri & Niklas Soderberg Campos & Fernanda Guimarães Aguiar & Maria Laura Romagnoli & Renato Carneiro de Freitas Chaves & Carolina Sco, 2020. "Intensive care unit patients’ opinion on enrollment in clinical research: A multicenter survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0236675
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236675
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236675&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0236675?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:pone00:0236675. 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.