Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review

Author:

Villarreal Cynthia LizetteORCID,Price Michelle AORCID,Moreno Ashley N,Zenteno Alfonso,Saenz Christine,Toppo Alexander,Herrera-Escobar Juan Pablo,Sims Carrie A,Bulger Eileen M

Abstract

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies.

Funder

US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Surgery

Reference37 articles.

1. National trauma research action plan investigators group. long-term patient-reported outcome measures after injury: national trauma research action plan (NTRAP) scoping review protocol;Herrera-Escobar;J Trauma Acute Care Surg,2021

2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . A national trauma care system: integrating military and civilian trauma systems to achieve zero preventable deaths after injury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2016.

3. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

4. The National trauma Institute: lessons learned in the funding and conduct of 16 trauma research studies;Price;J Trauma Acute Care Surg,2016

5. Reflections 1 year into the 21-center national institutes of health -- funded wrist study: a primer on conducting a multicenter clinical trial;J Hand Surg Am,2013

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3