Are pragmatism and ethical protections in clinical trials a zero-sum game?

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1177/17407745241284798
Hayden P Nix, Charles Weijer, Monica Taljaard
{"title":"Are pragmatism and ethical protections in clinical trials a zero-sum game?","authors":"Hayden P Nix, Charles Weijer, Monica Taljaard","doi":"10.1177/17407745241284798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Randomized controlled trials with pragmatic intent aim to generate evidence that directly informs clinical decisions. Some have argued that the ethical protection of informed consent can be in tension with the goals of pragmatism. But the impact of other ethical protections on trial pragmatism has yet to be explored.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>In this article, we analyze the relationship between additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants and the degree of pragmatism within the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) domains of trial design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyze three example trials with pragmatic intent that include vulnerable participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The relationship between ethical protections and trial pragmatism is complex. In some cases, additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants can promote the pragmatism of some of the PRECIS-2 domains of trial design. When designing trials with pragmatic intent, researchers ought to look for opportunities wherein ethical protections enhance the degree of pragmatism.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"17407745241284798"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241284798","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials with pragmatic intent aim to generate evidence that directly informs clinical decisions. Some have argued that the ethical protection of informed consent can be in tension with the goals of pragmatism. But the impact of other ethical protections on trial pragmatism has yet to be explored.

Purpose: In this article, we analyze the relationship between additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants and the degree of pragmatism within the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) domains of trial design.

Methods: We analyze three example trials with pragmatic intent that include vulnerable participants.

Conclusion: The relationship between ethical protections and trial pragmatism is complex. In some cases, additional ethical protections for vulnerable participants can promote the pragmatism of some of the PRECIS-2 domains of trial design. When designing trials with pragmatic intent, researchers ought to look for opportunities wherein ethical protections enhance the degree of pragmatism.

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
临床试验中的实用主义和伦理保护是零和游戏吗?
背景:以实用主义为目的的随机对照试验旨在产生直接为临床决策提供依据的证据。有些人认为,知情同意的伦理保护可能会与实用主义的目标产生矛盾。目的:在本文中,我们分析了对弱势参与者的额外伦理保护与试验设计的实用主义解释连续性指标摘要-2(PRECIS-2)领域中的实用主义程度之间的关系:我们分析了三项包含易受伤害参与者的实用主义试验:结论:伦理保护与试验实用主义之间的关系非常复杂。结论:伦理保护与试验实用性之间的关系很复杂。在某些情况下,为易受伤害的参与者提供额外的伦理保护可以促进 PRECIS-2 中某些试验设计领域的实用性。在设计具有实用性意图的试验时,研究人员应该寻找机会,让伦理保护提高实用性的程度。
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
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
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