Cargando…
Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review
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, a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9990621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36895783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001044 |
_version_ | 1784901973508620288 |
---|---|
author | Villarreal, Cynthia Lizette Price, Michelle A Moreno, Ashley N Zenteno, Alfonso Saenz, Christine Toppo, Alexander Herrera-Escobar, Juan Pablo Sims, Carrie A Bulger, Eileen M |
author_facet | Villarreal, Cynthia Lizette Price, Michelle A Moreno, Ashley N Zenteno, Alfonso Saenz, Christine Toppo, Alexander Herrera-Escobar, Juan Pablo Sims, Carrie A Bulger, Eileen M |
author_sort | Villarreal, Cynthia Lizette |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9990621 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99906212023-03-08 Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review Villarreal, Cynthia Lizette Price, Michelle A Moreno, Ashley N Zenteno, Alfonso Saenz, Christine Toppo, Alexander Herrera-Escobar, Juan Pablo Sims, Carrie A Bulger, Eileen M Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Review 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9990621/ /pubmed/36895783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001044 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Villarreal, Cynthia Lizette Price, Michelle A Moreno, Ashley N Zenteno, Alfonso Saenz, Christine Toppo, Alexander Herrera-Escobar, Juan Pablo Sims, Carrie A Bulger, Eileen M Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review |
title | Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review |
title_full | Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review |
title_fullStr | Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review |
title_full_unstemmed | Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review |
title_short | Regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review |
title_sort | regulatory challenges in conducting human subjects research in emergency settings: the national trauma research action plan (ntrap) scoping review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9990621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36895783 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2022-001044 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT villarrealcynthializette regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT pricemichellea regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT morenoashleyn regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT zentenoalfonso regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT saenzchristine regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT toppoalexander regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT herreraescobarjuanpablo regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT simscarriea regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT bulgereileenm regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview AT regulatorychallengesinconductinghumansubjectsresearchinemergencysettingsthenationaltraumaresearchactionplanntrapscopingreview |