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

BMC Medical Ethics

Table 3 Studies reporting public opinion of research without consent – Findings

Author	Sample	No of subjects	% agreed with RWC	% would personally be enrolled without consent			Factors measured
				risk not specified	minimal risk research	> minimal risk research	associated with attitude to RWC	not associated
Smithline & Gerstle (1998) [29]	Emergency Dept pts	204	-	-	73	50	Educational status and certain aspects of health status	Age, race, gender, perception of current acute illness.
McClure et al (2003) [31]	Emergency Dept pts & visitors	500+	34	70	75	50	Race	Gender, religion, education, insurance status, knowledge of resuscitation medicine.
Abboud et al (2006) [32]	Emergency Dept pts	207	-	70	88	77	Study design, invasiveness of intervention, patient group	Age, race; marital status, living situation, religion, church attendance, education, having an advance directive
	Geriatric Clinic pts	213		48	63	48	Geriatric clinic patients only – gender and health status
Goldstein et al (2007). [33]	Emergency Dept pts	473	51	57	-	-		Age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, insurance status, religion, confidence in current therapies & knowledge of requirements for RWC studies
Triner et al (2007) [34]	Emergency Dept pts & visitors	497	42	50	-	-	Age, Gender, ethnicity	Marital status, education.
Booth et al (2005) ¹²	Out-patients	362	84	-	92	67	None reported	None reported

ISSN: 1472-6939