HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Blixen, C E Articles by Agich, G J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Blixen, C E Articles by Agich, G J

Stroke patients’ preferences and values about emergency research

¹ Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA
² Department of Bioethics, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Correspondence to:
Carol E Blixen
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology WB-4, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; blixenc{at}ccf.org Background: In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration waiver of informed consent permits certain emergency research only if community consultation occurs. However, uncertainty exists regarding how to define the community(ies) or their representatives.

Objective: To collect data on the actual preferences and values of a group—those at risk for stroke—most directly affected by the waiver of informed consent for emergency research.

Design: Face to face focused interviews were conducted with 12 patients who were hospitalised with a stroke diagnosis in the previous year. The interviews were audiotaped and a transcript based method was used for their analysis.

Results: All 12 participants felt "that it was important that new treatments for stroke be developed", but they were initially confused about the distinction between "research for stroke" and "emergency research for stroke". However, after explanation, most (n = 10; 83%) expressed willingness to participate in the latter. In the absence of a surrogate to give informed consent in a stroke emergency situation, the majority (n = 11; 92%) said they would want the physician to "go ahead and enrol them in the trial".

Conclusions: This study is the first to identify the values and concerns of individuals most directly affected by stroke emergency research. Further interviews and focus groups are needed to develop and test a validated questionnaire on the preferences and values surrounding emergency research for stroke.

Abbreviations: ERS, emergency research for stroke

Keywords: community consultation; emergency research; informed consent