Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Introduction:Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research.Methods:The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings.Results:During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public.Conclusion:The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.

Evolving Understanding of Patients' Experiences in Acute Care Trials Without Prospective Consent*

Analysis of time to regulatory approval in an exception from informed consent trial in trauma patients

Community consultation in the pediatric intensive care unit for an exception from informed consent Trial: A survey of patient caregivers

Informed consent of incapable (ICU) patients in Europe: existing laws and the EU Directive

Deferred consent in emergency trauma research: A qualitative study assessing the healthcare professional's opinions

The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research

Deferred Consent in Neonatal Clinical Research: Why, When, How?

Coerced consent in clinical research: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research

Perspectives of ICU Patients on Deferred Consent in the Context of Post-ICU Quality of Life: A Substudy of a Randomized Clinical Trial

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence

Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic

An Electronic Tool to Support Patient-Centered Broad Consent: A Multi-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial in Family Medicine

Towards an understanding of the ethics of electronic consent in clinical trials

Public perception of participation in low-risk clinical trials in critical care using waived consent: a Canadian national survey

Interactive Media-Based Approach for an Exception From Informed Consent Trial Involving Patients With Trauma

Designing e-consent protocols for pragmatic clinical trials: case studies from a UKCRC clinical trials unit

Evolution of informed consent in research: From the Hippocratic Oath to the tailored consent

Personalized and longitudinal electronic informed consent in clinical trials: How to move the needle?

A Qualitative Analysis of Ethical Perspectives on Recruitment and Consent for Human Intracranial Electrophysiology Studies

The creation of an adaptable informed consent form for research purposes to overcome national and institutional bottlenecks in ethics review: experience from rare disease registries