Selecting subjects for participation in clinical research: one sphere of justice. (1/498)

Recent guidelines from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate the inclusion of adequate numbers of women in clinical trials. Ought such standards to apply internationally? Walzer's theory of justice is brought to bear on the problem, the first use of the theory in research ethics, and it argues for broad application of the principle of adequate representation. A number of practical conclusions for research ethics committees (RECs) are outlined. Eligibility criteria in clinical trials ought to be justified by trial designers. Research ethics committees ought to question criteria that seem to exclude unnecessarily women from research participation. The issue of adequate representation should be construed broadly, so as to include consideration of the representation of the elderly, persons with HIV, mental illness and substance abuse disorders in clinical research.  (+info)

Attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions of women with breast and/or ovarian cancer considering testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2. (2/498)

PURPOSE: This study examined baseline knowledge, beliefs, and risk perceptions among a group of 200 women with breast and/or ovarian cancer who participated in a trial designed to improve decision making about genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women were identified by self-referral, physician referral, and tumor registry extraction and invited to participate in a randomized trial in which testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 was offered free of charge. Subjects completed baseline questionnaires and interviews that assessed knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of risk of having an alteration in BRCA1 or BRCA2. RESULTS: Sixty percent of women overestimated their chances of having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation compared with estimates from a BRCA1/BRCA2 risk model. Women who have at least three relatives with breast or ovarian cancer were one third (95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.6) as likely to overestimate their risk of having a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation compared with women who have two or fewer affected relatives. Knowledge was limited about BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and cancer risk associated with gene mutations. Eighty-four percent of the women indicated a probable or definite interest in testing. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of the high-risk women in this study had knowledge deficits about BRCA1 and BRCA2 and overestimated their risk of having a mutation. Although some degree of caution should be used in generalizing the results of this study to practice settings, the data provide insight into the challenges clinicians will face in communicating with patients about cancer genetics.  (+info)

An evaluation of "informed consent" with volunteer prisoner subjects. (3/498)

"Informed consent" sets a goal for investigators experimenting with human subjects, but little is known about how to achieve or evaluate it in an experiment. In a 3-year, double-blind study with incarcerated men, we attempted to provide a "free and informed consent" and evaluated our efforts with an unannounced questionnaire administered to subjects after they completed the experiment. At that time, approximately two-thirds had sufficient information for an informed consent, but only one-third was well informed about all key aspects of the experiment and one-third was insufficiently informed to give an informed consent. We found that institution- or study-based coercion was minimal in our experiment. From our evaluation of the questionnaire and experience at the study institution, we conclude that an experiment with human subjects should be designed to include an ongoing evaluation of informed consent, and active attempts should be made to avoid or minimize coercive inducements. Experiments with significant risk, which require a long duration and/or large sample size relative to the institution's population, should probably not be performed on prisoner subjects. The experimenter should be independent of the penal institution's power structure. Presenting and explaining a consent form to volunteers on one occasion is probably an in adequate procedure for obtaining and maintaining an informed consent.  (+info)

Is recruitment more difficult with a placebo arm in randomised controlled trials? A quasirandomised, interview based study. (4/498)

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether including a placebo arm in a clinical trial of hormone replacement therapy influenced women's stated willingness to participate. DESIGN: Quasirandomised, interview based study. SETTING: 10 group practices in the Medical Research Council's General Practice Research Framework. PARTICIPANTS: 436 postmenopausal women aged 45-64 who had not had a hysterectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stated willingness to enter a trial and reasons for the decisions made. RESULTS: Of 218 women told about the trial without a placebo arm, 85 (39%) indicated their willingness to enter compared with 65 (30%) of the 218 women told about the trial with the placebo arm (P=0.06). Part of this difference was due to explicit reluctance to take a placebo. Altruism and personal benefit were the reasons most frequently given for wanting to take part in a trial. The reasons most frequently cited for not wanting to take part were reluctance to restart periods, not wanting to take unknown or unnecessary tablets, or not wanting to interfere with present good health. CONCLUSION: For preventive trials the inclusion of a placebo arm may reduce patients' willingness to participate.  (+info)

Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. (5/498)

PURPOSE: To create a more meaningful understanding of the informed consent process as it has come to be practiced and regulated in clinical trials, this discussion uses the experience gained from the conduct of therapeutic research that involves cancer patients. DESIGN: After an introduction of the ethical tenets of the consent process in clinical research that involves potentially vulnerable patients as research subjects, background that details the use of written consent documents and of the term "informed consent" is provided. Studies from the cancer setting that examine the inadequacies of written consent documents, and the outcome of the consent process itself, are reviewed. Two ethically challenging areas of cancer clinical research, the phase I trial and the randomized controlled trial, are discussed briefly as a means of highlighting many dilemmas present in clinical trials. Before concluding, areas for future research are discussed. RESULTS: Through an exclusive cancer research perspective, many current deficiencies in the informed consent process for therapeutic clinical trials can be critically examined. Also, new directions for improvements and areas of further research can be outlined and discussed objectively. The goals of such improvements and research should be prevention of further misguided or ineffective efforts to regulate the informed consent process. CONCLUSION: To ignore this rich and interesting perspective potentially contributes to continued misunderstanding and apathy toward fulfilling the regulatory and ethically obligatory requirements involved in an essential communication process between a clinician-investigator and a potentially vulnerable patient who is considering clinical trial participation.  (+info)

Research, ethics and conflicts of interest. (6/498)

In this paper, I have tried to develop a critique of committee procedures and conflict of interest within research advisory committees and ethical review committees (ERCs). There are specific features of conflict of interest in medical research. Scientists, communities and the subjects of research all have legitimate stakeholdings. The interests of medical scientists are particularly complex, since they are justified by the moral and physical welfare of their research subjects, while the reputations and incomes of scientists depend on the success of their science. Tensions of this kind must at times produce conflict of interest. It is important to recognise that conflicts of interest may unwittingly lead to manipulation of research subjects and their lay representatives on research committees. It is equally important to recognise distinctions between the legal and moral aspects of conflict of interest. Some practical suggestions are made which may go some way towards resolving these difficulties. They indicate what might be needed to ensure the validity of ethical discourse, and to reduce the risks associated with conflict of interest.  (+info)

Can the written information to research subjects be improved?--an empirical study. (7/498)

OBJECTIVES: To study whether linguistic analysis and changes in information leaflets can improve readability and understanding. DESIGN: Randomised, controlled study. Two information leaflets concerned with trials of drugs for conditions/diseases which are commonly known were modified, and the original was tested against the revised version. SETTING: Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: 235 persons in the relevant age groups. MAIN MEASURES: Readability and understanding of contents. RESULTS: Both readability and understanding of contents was improved: readability with regard to both information leaflets and understanding with regard to one of the leaflets. CONCLUSION: The results show that both readability and understanding can be improved by increased attention to the linguistic features of the information.  (+info)

Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals. (8/498)

BACKGROUND: There is relatively little research concerning the processes whereby Local Research Ethics Committees discharge their responsibilities towards society, potential participants and investigators. OBJECTIVES: To examine the criteria used by LRECs in arriving at their decisions concerning approval of research protocols through an analysis of letters sent to investigators. DESIGN: Four LRECs each provided copies of 50 letters sent to investigators after their submitted proposals had been considered by the committees. These letters were subjected to a content analysis, in which specific comments and requests for additional information and changes in the protocols were recorded and compared. FINDINGS: Overall 24% of proposals were approved without request for changes or clarifications, but this varied by committee: one committee approved only 6% of proposals without change or clarification while the others ranged from 26% to 32%. The content analyses of responses indicated that they could be placed into four categories: (i) further information for the committee to aid in their deliberations; (ii) requests for changes to the design or justification for the design used; (iii) changes to the information sheets provided to potential participants; and (iv) changes to consent procedures. Of these, alterations to information sheets were the most common type of request. These four types of response could be seen as safeguarding the wellbeing of potential participants (the principle of non-maleficence), of promoting the scientific validity of the research (the principle of beneficence), and of enhancing the rights of potential participants (the principle of autonomy). CONCLUSIONS: The committees were consistent in the types of requests they made of investigators, which can be seen as attempts to protect participants' rights and ensure the scientific validity of studies. Without an analysis of the proposals sent to the committees, however, it is difficult to account for the variation in the requirements set by the committees before approval was given.  (+info)