Informed consent in biomedical research: Scopes and challenges
Reflections on Research
Kingshuk Chatterjee, Nilay K Das
Inidian Dermatology Online Journal, 14 July 2021; 12(4) 529-535
Abstract
Medical science is evolving constantly and this evolution cannot happen without biomedical research involving human participant. Owing to a tumultuous history, importance of ethical research cannot be over emphasized in today’s world and the concept of informed consent becomes the guardian of ethics, not only to improve the bonding between the participant and researcher aiding a wholehearted involvement but also ensuring safety for the participants from research related injury/loss. Subject information sheet (SIF) and Informed consent form (ICF) are the fundamental elements of informed consent document. Process of obtaining them from illiterate and vulnerable populations involves the legally authorized representative (LAR) and impartial witness. Audiovisual recording becomes important in case of clinical trials. Process of obtaining informed consent becomes challenging for vulnerable populations as well as during pandemic situations. A comprehensive informed consent is essential for a credible and ethical research.

Enrollment with and without Exception from Informed Consent in a Pilot Trial of Tranexamic Acid in Children with Hemorrhagic Injuries
Original Contribution
Seth W. Linakis, Nathan Kuppermann, Rachel M. Stanley, Hilary Hewes, Sage Myers, John M. VanBuren, T. Charles Casper, Matthew Bobinski, Simona Ghetti, Walton O. Schalick III, Daniel K. Nishijima
Academic Emergency Medicine, 12 July 2021
Abstract
Background
Federal exception from informed consent (EFIC) procedures allow studies to enroll patients with time-sensitive, life-threatening conditions when written consent is not feasible. Our objective was to compare enrollment rates with and without EFIC in a trial of tranexamic acid (TXA) for children with hemorrhagic injuries.
Methods
We conducted a four-center randomized controlled pilot and feasibility trial evaluating TXA in children with severe hemorrhagic brain and/or torso injuries. We initiated the trial enrolling patients without EFIC. After 3 months of enrollment, we met our a priori futility threshold and paused the trial to incorporate EFIC procedures and obtain regulatory approval. We then restarted the trial allowing EFIC if the guardian was unable to provide timely written consent. We used descriptive statistics to compare characteristics of eligible patients approached with and without EFIC procedures. We also calculated the time delay to restart the trial using EFIC.
Results
We enrolled 1 of 15 (6.7%) eligible patients (0.17 per site per month) prior to using EFIC procedures. Of the 14 missed eligible patients, 7 (50%) were not enrolled because guardians were not present or were injured and unable to provide written consent. After obtaining approval for EFIC, we enrolled 30 of 48 (62.5%) eligible patients (1.34 per site per month). Of these 30 patients, 22 (73.3%) were enrolled with EFIC. Of the 22, no guardians refused written consent after randomization. There were no significant differences in the eligibility rate and patient characteristics enrolled with and without EFIC procedures. Across all sites, the mean delay to restart the trial using EFIC procedures was 12 months.
Conclusions
In a multicenter trial of severely injured children, the use of EFIC procedures greatly increased the enrollment rate and was well accepted by guardians. Initiating the trial without EFIC procedures led to a significant delay in enrollment.

Ethical Issues in Intraoperative Neuroscience Research: Assessing Subjects’ Recall of Informed Consent and Motivations for Participation
Research Article
Anna Wexler, Rebekah J. Choi, Ashwin G. Ramayya, Nikhil Sharma, Brendan J. McShane, Love Y. Buch, Melanie P. Donley-Fletcher, Joshua I. Gold, Gordon H. Baltuch, Sara Goering, Eran Klein
AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 6 July 2021
Abstract
Background
An increasing number of studies utilize intracranial electrophysiology in human subjects to advance basic neuroscience knowledge. However, the use of neurosurgical patients as human research subjects raises important ethical considerations, particularly regarding informed consent and undue influence, as well as subjects’ motivations for participation. Yet a thorough empirical examination of these issues in a participant population has been lacking. The present study therefore aimed to empirically investigate ethical concerns regarding informed consent and voluntariness in Parkinson’s disease patients undergoing deep brain stimulator (DBS) placement who participated in an intraoperative neuroscience study.
Methods
Two semi-structured 30-minute interviews were conducted preoperatively and postoperatively via telephone. Interviews assessed participants’ motivations for participation in the parent intraoperative study, recall of information presented during the informed consent process, and participants’ postoperative reflections on the research study.
Results
Twenty-two participants (mean age = 60.9) completed preoperative interviews at a mean of 7.8 days following informed consent and a mean of 5.2 days prior to DBS surgery. Twenty participants completed postoperative interviews at a mean of 5 weeks following surgery. All participants cited altruism or advancing medical science as “very important” or “important” in their decision to participate in the study. Only 22.7% (n = 5) correctly recalled one of the two risks of the study. Correct recall of other aspects of the informed consent was poor (36.4% for study purpose; 50.0% for study protocol; 36.4% for study benefits). All correctly understood that the study would not confer a direct therapeutic benefit to them.
Conclusion
Even though research coordinators were properly trained and the informed consent was administered according to protocol, participants demonstrated poor retention of study information. While intraoperative studies that aim to advance neuroscience knowledge represent a unique opportunity to gain fundamental scientific knowledge, improved standards for the informed consent process can help facilitate their ethical implementation.

Boundaries Between Research Ethics and Ethical Research Use in Artificial Intelligence Health Research
Research Article
Gabrielle Samuel, Jenn Chubb, Gemma Derrick
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 18 March 2021; 16(3) pp 325-337
Open Access
Abstract
The governance of ethically acceptable research in higher education institutions has been under scrutiny over the past half a century. Concomitantly, recently, decision makers have required researchers to acknowledge the societal impact of their research, as well as anticipate and respond to ethical dimensions of this societal impact through responsible research and innovation principles. Using artificial intelligence population health research in the United Kingdom and Canada as a case study, we combine a mapping study of journal publications with 18 interviews with researchers to explore how the ethical dimensions associated with this societal impact are incorporated into research agendas. Researchers separated the ethical responsibility of their research with its societal impact. We discuss the implications for both researchers and actors across the Ethics Ecosystem.