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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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