Table 2

Studies reporting public opinion of research without consent – Aspects of study design

Author

Country

Study design

Sample

No of subjects

Scenarios/hypothetical studies

Measurements


Smithline & Gerstle (1998) [29]

US

Interview survey

Emergency Dept pts

204

Patient had serious illness

Agree/disagree

1. Study intervention with minimal absolute risk

2. Study intervention with greater than minimal absolute risk

McClure et al (2003) [31]

US

Interview survey

Emergency Dept pts & visitors

530

1. Study intervention with minimal absolute risk

5-point Likert scale

2. Study intervention with greater than minimal absolute risk

Two study scenarios:

1. New therapies for serious bleeding

2. Efficacy of public access to defibrillation

Abboud et al (2006) [32]

US

Interview survey

Emergency Dept pts

207

Patient in cardiac arrest

Geriatric Clinic pts

213

Two surgical procedures:

1. Less invasive, intravenous line (minimal risk)

4-point Likert scale

2. More invasive, thoracotomy (>minimal risk)

New experimental medicine in three study designs:

1. Outside of a study protocol;

2. Part of a study protocol;

3. In a randomised controlled trial

Goldstein et al (2007). [33]

US

Interview survey

Emergency Dept pts

473

Patient suffered cardiac arrest or stroke

Not stated

Triner et al (2007) [34]

US

Interview survey

Emergency Dept pts & visitors

497

General description of waiver of and exception from informed consent studies

5-point Likert scale

Booth et al (2005) [30]

UK

Self-completion questionnaire

Out-patients

362

Patient suffered heart attack, stroke or head injury

Yes/No/Don't know

1. Study intervention with minimal risk

2. Study intervention with moderate risk


Lecouturier et al. BMC Medical Ethics 2008 9:9   doi:10.1186/1472-6939-9-9

Open Data