Contraception Requirements in Clinical Research Consent Forms: Assessing and Supporting Gender Inclusive Practices.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-11 DOI:10.1177/15562646241238301
Tara Coffin, Erin Brower, Sharad Adekar
{"title":"Contraception Requirements in Clinical Research Consent Forms: Assessing and Supporting Gender Inclusive Practices.","authors":"Tara Coffin, Erin Brower, Sharad Adekar","doi":"10.1177/15562646241238301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gender-diverse individuals are underserved in clinical research settings. Reliance on gendered language throughout the consent process for clinical research contributes to the marginalization of these populations. The research objective was to assess use of gender-inclusive language used to describe the contraception requirement in consent forms. We categorized and analyzed contraception language in 289 clinical trial consent forms using a deductive and summative content analysis approach. We found that 79% (n = 227) of consent forms contained gender-inclusive language, 80% (n = 231) used terms that fell under the biological sex language, and 91% (n = 264) used gendered language. No consent forms used exclusively gender-inclusive language and the majority 63% (n = 182) featuring a combination of all three language types. There were many consent forms which would have been entirely gender-inclusive language if section headings with references to biological-sex-specific contraceptives were excluded, suggesting that gender-inclusive language may be attainable with minor revisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241238301","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gender-diverse individuals are underserved in clinical research settings. Reliance on gendered language throughout the consent process for clinical research contributes to the marginalization of these populations. The research objective was to assess use of gender-inclusive language used to describe the contraception requirement in consent forms. We categorized and analyzed contraception language in 289 clinical trial consent forms using a deductive and summative content analysis approach. We found that 79% (n = 227) of consent forms contained gender-inclusive language, 80% (n = 231) used terms that fell under the biological sex language, and 91% (n = 264) used gendered language. No consent forms used exclusively gender-inclusive language and the majority 63% (n = 182) featuring a combination of all three language types. There were many consent forms which would have been entirely gender-inclusive language if section headings with references to biological-sex-specific contraceptives were excluded, suggesting that gender-inclusive language may be attainable with minor revisions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床研究同意书中的避孕要求:评估和支持性别包容实践。
在临床研究环境中,不同性别的人得不到充分的服务。在临床研究的整个同意过程中,依赖于性别语言会导致这些人群被边缘化。我们的研究目标是评估在同意书中描述避孕要求的性别包容性语言的使用情况。我们采用演绎和总结性内容分析法对 289 份临床试验同意书中的避孕用语进行了分类和分析。我们发现,79%(n = 227)的同意书包含性别包容性语言,80%(n = 231)的同意书使用了属于生物性别语言的术语,91%(n = 264)的同意书使用了性别化语言。没有一份同意书只使用了性别包容性语言,大多数同意书的 63%(n = 182)使用了这三种语言的组合。有许多同意书如果不包括提及特定生物性别避孕药具的章节标题,就完全可以使用性别全纳语言,这表明只要稍加修改,就可以使用性别全纳语言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1