Disclaimer
Oxford University Press makes no representation, express or implied, that the drug dosages in this book are correct. Readers must therefore always … More Oxford University Press makes no representation, express or implied, that the drug dosages in this book are correct. Readers must therefore always check the product information and clinical procedures with the most up to date published product information and data sheets provided by the manufacturers and the most recent codes of conduct and safety regulations. The authors and the publishers do not accept responsibility or legal liability for any errors in the text or for the misuse or misapplication of material in this work. Except where otherwise stated, drug dosages and recommendations are for the non-pregnant adult who is not breastfeeding.
You do not currently have access to this chapter.
1. Byrne-Davis L, Salmon P, Gravenhorst K, et al. Balancing high accrual and ethical recruitment in paediatric oncology: a qualitative study of the ‘look and feel’ of clinical trial discussions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10:101. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Gill D. Ethical principles and operational guidelines for good clinical practice in paediatric research. Recommendations of the Ethics Working Group of the Confederation of European Specialists in Paediatrics (CESP). Eur J Pediatr 2004;163:53–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Angelos P. Ethical issues of participant recruitment in surgical clinical trials. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:3184–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Brierley J, Larcher V. Emergency research in children: options for ethical recruitment. J Med Ethics 2011;37:429–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Caldwell PHY, Dans L, de Vries MC, et al. Standard 1: consent and recruitment. Pediatrics 2012;129(Suppl 3):S118–S23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. [Google Scholar]
7. Nelson RM, Beauchamp T, Miller VA, et al. The concept of voluntary consent. Am J Bioeth 2011;11:6–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use: Official Journal of the European Communities, 2001:0034–44.
9. Roberts I, Prieto-Merino D, Shakur H, et al. Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet 2011; 377:1071–2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Kottow M. The battering of informed consent. J Med Ethics 2004;30:565–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Legislation.gov.uk. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) and Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) Regulations 2008 941. 10. 2008.
12. Fost N, Robertson J. Deferring consent with incompetent patients in an intensive care unit. IRB 1980;2:5–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Lecouturier J, Rodgers H, Ford G, et al. Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views. BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Cooke RWI. Good practice in consent. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2005;10:63–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. McIntyre J, Robertson S, Norris E, et al. Safety and efficacy of buccal midazolam versus rectal diazepam for emergency treatment of seizures in children: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:205–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Shamoo AE. Letter to the Editor: emergency research consent waiver—a proper way. Am J Bioeth 2006;6:W48–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. McClure KB, DeIorio NM, Gunnels MD, et al. Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:352–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. U.S Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for institutional review boards, clinical investigators, and sponsers. Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research. Rockvile, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, 2013. [Google Scholar]
19. Baren JM, Nathanson PG. Recruitment and communication process for participation in the 2005 AEM Consensus Conference on the ethical conduct of resuscitation research: methodology, challenges, lessons learned. Acad Emerg Med 2005; 12:1027–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Tindana PO, Singh JA, Tracy CS, et al. Grand challenges in global health: community engagement in research in developing countries. PLoS Med 2007;4:e273. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Donovan J, Mills N, Smith M, et al. Quality improvement report: improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult. BMJ 2002;325:766–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Campbell MK, Skea ZC, Sutherland AG, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic lavage in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a mixed methods study of the feasibility of conducting a surgical placebo-controlled trial (the KORAL study). Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Shilling V, Williamson PR, Hickey H, et al. Processes in recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medicines for children (RECRUIT): a qualitative study. Health Technol Assess 2011;15:1–116. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Penn C, Evans M. Recommendations for communication to enhance informed consent and enrolment at multilingual research sites. Afr J AIDS Res 2009;8:285–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Woolfall K, Frith L, Gamble C, et al. How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013:45. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Chappuy H, Bouazza N, Minard-Colin V, et al. Parental comprehension of the benefits/risks of first-line randomised clinical trials in children with solid tumours: a two-stage cross-sectional interview study. BMJ Open 2013;3:pii: e002733 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, et al. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open 2013;3:pii: e002889. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Ennis L, Wykes T. Impact of patient involvement in mental health research: longitudinal study. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 203:381–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Novorol CL, Chin RFM, Scott RC. Outcome of convulsive status epilepticus: a review. Arch Dis Child 2007;92:948–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Chin RFM, Neville BGR, Peckham C, et al. Incidence, cause, and short-term outcome of convulsive status epilepticus in childhood: prospective population-based study. Lancet 2006;368:222–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Hussain N, Appleton R, Thorburn K. Aetiology, course and outcome of children admitted to paediatric intensive care with convulsive status epilepticus: a retrospective 5-year review. Seizure 2007;16:305–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Chin RFM, Verhulst L, Neville BGR, et al. Inappropriate emergency management of status epilepticus in children contributes to need for intensive care. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:1584–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Advanced Life Support Group. Advanced paediatric life support (APLS): the practical approach. 5th edn Wiley Blackwell, 2011. [Google Scholar]
34. Friedman JN, Cheng A, Farrell C, et al. Emergency management of the paediatric patient with generalized convulsive status epilepticus. Paediatr Child Health 2011;16:91–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Berning S, Boesebeck F, Van Baalen A, et al. Intravenous levetiracetam as treatment for status epilepticus. J Neurol 2009;256:1634–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Misra UK, Kalita J, Maurya PK. Levetiracetam versus lorazepam in status epilepticus: a randomized, open labeled pilot study. J Neurol 2012;259:645–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Trinka E, Dobesberger J. New treatment options in status epilepticus: a critical review on intravenous levetiracetam. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2009;2:79–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Guarte JM, Barrios EB. Estimation under purposive sampling. Commun Stat—Simulation Comput 2006;35:277–84. [Google Scholar]
39. Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50–2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded thoery. 2nd edn Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998. [Google Scholar]
41. Glaser B. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965;12:436–45. [Google Scholar]
42. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Baker SE, Edwards R. How many qualitative interviews is enough? National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). University of Southampton, 2012. [Google Scholar]
44. Stiles WB. Evaluating qualitative research. Evid Based Ment Health 1999;2:99–101. [Google Scholar]
45. Jansen TC, Kompanje EJ, Bakker J. Deferred proxy consent in emergency criticial care research: ethically valid and practically feasible. Crit Care Med 2009;37:S65–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Maitland K, Molyyneux S, Boga , et al. Use of deferred consent for severely ill children in a multi-centre phase III trial. Trials 2011;12:90. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, et al. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001;358:1772–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Chappuy H, Baruchel A, Leverger G, et al. Parental comprehension and satisfaction in informed consent in paediatric clinical trials: a prospective study on childhood leukaemia. Arch Dis Child 2010;95:800–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Woolfall K, Shilling V, Hickey H, et al. Parents’ agendas in paediatric clinical trial recruitment are different from researchers’ and often remain unvoiced: a qualitative study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e67352. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Gillies K, Entwistle VA. Supporting positive experiences and sustained participation in clinical trials: looking beyond information provision. J Med Ethics 2012;38:751–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Woolfall K, Shilling V, Hickey H, et al. Parents’ agendas in paediatric clinical trial recruitment are different from researchers’ and often remain unvoiced: a qualitative study. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e67352. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Mills N, Donovan JL, Wade J, et al. Exploring treatment preferences facilitated recruitment to randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1127–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Gamble C, Nadel S, Snape D, et al. What parents of children who have received emergency care think about deferring consent in randomised trials of emergency treatments: postal survey. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e35982. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Jansen TC, Bakker J, Kompanje EJ. Inability to obtain deferred consent due to early death in emergency research: effect on validity of clinical trial results. Intensive Care Med 2010;36:1962–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Silcock J, et al. Can user testing of a clinical trial patient information sheet make it fit-for-purpose?—A randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2011;9:89. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Reinert C, Kremmler L, Burock S, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trials. Eur J Canc 2014;50:150–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Gamble C, Nadel S, Snape D, et al. What Parents of Children Who Have Received Emergency Care Think about Deferring Consent in Randomised Trials of Emergency Treatments: Postal Survey. PLoS ONE. Published: 7 May 2012. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00359. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Shilling V, Williamson PR, Hickey H, et al. Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e21604. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Spriggs M, Gillam L. Deception of children in research. J Med Ethics 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). INVOLVE. INVOLVE Strategy 2012–2015. Putting people first in research, 2012.
61. Pearson M, Monks T, Gibson A, et al. Involving patients and the public in healthcare operational research—The challenges and opportunities. Operations Research for Health Care 2013;2:86–9. [Google Scholar]