Skip to main content

Table 2 Studies reporting public opinion of research without consent – Aspects of study design

From: Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views

Author Country Study design Sample No of subjects Scenarios/hypothetical studies Measurements
Smithline & Gerstle (1998) [29] US Interview survey Emergency Dept pts 204 Patient had serious illness Agree/disagree
      1. Study intervention with minimal absolute risk  
      2. Study intervention with greater than minimal absolute risk  
McClure et al (2003) [31] US Interview survey Emergency Dept pts & visitors 530 1. Study intervention with minimal absolute risk 5-point Likert scale
      2. Study intervention with greater than minimal absolute risk  
      Two study scenarios:  
      1. New therapies for serious bleeding  
      2. Efficacy of public access to defibrillation  
Abboud et al (2006) [32] US Interview survey Emergency Dept pts 207 Patient in cardiac arrest  
    Geriatric Clinic pts 213 Two surgical procedures:  
      1. Less invasive, intravenous line (minimal risk) 4-point Likert scale
      2. More invasive, thoracotomy (>minimal risk)  
      New experimental medicine in three study designs:  
      1. Outside of a study protocol;  
      2. Part of a study protocol;  
      3. In a randomised controlled trial  
Goldstein et al (2007). [33] US Interview survey Emergency Dept pts 473 Patient suffered cardiac arrest or stroke Not stated
Triner et al (2007) [34] US Interview survey Emergency Dept pts & visitors 497 General description of waiver of and exception from informed consent studies 5-point Likert scale
Booth et al (2005) [30] UK Self-completion questionnaire Out-patients 362 Patient suffered heart attack, stroke or head injury Yes/No/Don't know
      1. Study intervention with minimal risk  
      2. Study intervention with moderate risk  
Back to article page