Public perceptions of participation in trials in the intensive care unit: an ERS Clinical Research Collaboration international cross-sectional survey across 13 countries

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: Public views of trial participation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often not sought, yet as patients and study participants, they are profoundly affected. We aimed to understand public opinions on pandemic and non-pandemic ICU trials, consent, adaptive trials and personalised medicine, following the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Views of nationally representative samples were collected through a cross-sectional scenario-based survey in 13 countries; Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, UK and USA and analysed by descriptive and regression analyses. Results: Of 9726 respondents, 7382 (75.9%) felt pandemic research is important, that trials should be established in interpandemic periods (76.1%) with special rules to make it quicker/easier (72.8%) and patients and public involved (73%). Less respondents indicated trust in their government’s pandemic management (45.3%). A minority of respondents indicated they would not want to participate in low-risk (1627,16.7%) and higher-risk (1823,18.7%) pandemic ICU trials. Respondents supported alternative consent approaches to prospective consent (79.8%, e.g. deferred/substitute decision maker). Few respondents were not supportive of biological sampling (11.8%), adaptive trials (5.3%) and personalised medicine (6%). In 9 of 13 countries asked about non-pandemic respiratory ICU trials, only 17.3% of respondents would not want to participate. Previous ICU and pandemic experience and trust were predictive of agreement to participate. Conclusions: Our study highlights public support for pandemic and non-pandemic ICU trials. It is essential to understand such views to inform trials, build trust and understanding. This work has informed PANTHER and REMAP-CAP platform trials.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.