Ethical issues in vaccine trial participation by adolescents: qualitative insights on family decision making from a human papillomavirus vaccine trial in Tanzania.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01122-z
Lucy Frost, Ms Tusajigwe Erio, Hilary Whitworth, Ms Graca Marwerwe, Richard Hayes, Kathy Baisley, Silvia de SanJosé, Deborah Watson-Jones, Kirstin Mitchell
{"title":"Ethical issues in vaccine trial participation by adolescents: qualitative insights on family decision making from a human papillomavirus vaccine trial in Tanzania.","authors":"Lucy Frost, Ms Tusajigwe Erio, Hilary Whitworth, Ms Graca Marwerwe, Richard Hayes, Kathy Baisley, Silvia de SanJosé, Deborah Watson-Jones, Kirstin Mitchell","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01122-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research in children is essential for them to benefit from the outcomes of research but involvement must be weighed against potential harms. In many countries and circumstances, medical research legally requires parental consent until the age of 18 years, with poorly defined recommendations for assent prior to this. However, there is little research exploring how these decisions are made by families and the ethical implications of this.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore key ethical debates in decision-making for participation of children and adolescents in a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with Tanzanian girls (aged 9-16 years) who had participated in an HPV vaccine trial (n = 13), their parents or guardians (n = 12), and girls together with their parents (in paired parent-child interviews) (n = 6). The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Interview data came from a qualitative acceptability study undertaken as part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS) trial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Girls and parents desired collaborative decision-making, with parents ultimately making the decision to consent. However, girls wanted a larger part in decision-making. Decisions to consent involved many people, including extended social networks, the trial team, media outlets and healthcare professionals and this resulted in conflicts to be negotiated. Deciding where to place trust was central in participants and parents considering decisions to consent and overcoming rumours about trial involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing models of decision-making help to understand dynamics between parents, adolescents and researchers but neglect the important wider social impacts and the fundamental nature of trust. Children's roles in discussions can be evaluated using the principles of consent: autonomy, freedom and information. Concepts such as relational autonomy help to explain mechanisms families use to negotiate complex consent decisions. Whilst interviewees supported the maintenance of legal parental consent, researchers must design consent processes centring the child to ensure that whole family decision-making processes are supported.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"25 1","pages":"134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01122-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research in children is essential for them to benefit from the outcomes of research but involvement must be weighed against potential harms. In many countries and circumstances, medical research legally requires parental consent until the age of 18 years, with poorly defined recommendations for assent prior to this. However, there is little research exploring how these decisions are made by families and the ethical implications of this.

Aim: To explore key ethical debates in decision-making for participation of children and adolescents in a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with Tanzanian girls (aged 9-16 years) who had participated in an HPV vaccine trial (n = 13), their parents or guardians (n = 12), and girls together with their parents (in paired parent-child interviews) (n = 6). The interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Interview data came from a qualitative acceptability study undertaken as part of the Dose Reduction Immunobridging and Safety Study of Two Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines in Tanzanian Girls (DoRIS) trial.

Results: Girls and parents desired collaborative decision-making, with parents ultimately making the decision to consent. However, girls wanted a larger part in decision-making. Decisions to consent involved many people, including extended social networks, the trial team, media outlets and healthcare professionals and this resulted in conflicts to be negotiated. Deciding where to place trust was central in participants and parents considering decisions to consent and overcoming rumours about trial involvement.

Conclusions: Existing models of decision-making help to understand dynamics between parents, adolescents and researchers but neglect the important wider social impacts and the fundamental nature of trust. Children's roles in discussions can be evaluated using the principles of consent: autonomy, freedom and information. Concepts such as relational autonomy help to explain mechanisms families use to negotiate complex consent decisions. Whilst interviewees supported the maintenance of legal parental consent, researchers must design consent processes centring the child to ensure that whole family decision-making processes are supported.

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
青少年参与疫苗试验的伦理问题:坦桑尼亚人类乳头瘤病毒疫苗试验对家庭决策的定性分析。
背景:对儿童进行研究对他们从研究成果中获益至关重要,但必须权衡参与研究与潜在危害之间的关系。在许多国家和环境中,医学研究在法律上需要得到父母的同意,直到他们年满 18 岁。目的:探讨儿童和青少年参与人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗试验决策过程中的主要伦理争论:对参加过 HPV 疫苗试验的坦桑尼亚女孩(9-16 岁)(13 人)、她们的父母或监护人(12 人)以及与父母一起参加试验的女孩(6 人)进行了半结构式访谈。访谈采用主题分析法进行分析。访谈数据来自一项定性可接受性研究,该研究是坦桑尼亚女孩两种人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗剂量减少免疫桥接和安全性研究(DoRIS)试验的一部分:结果:女孩和家长都希望共同决策,最终由家长决定是否同意。然而,女孩希望在决策中发挥更大的作用。同意与否的决定涉及许多人,包括广泛的社会网络、试验团队、媒体和医疗保健专业人员,这导致了需要协商的冲突。在参与者和家长考虑同意与否的决定以及克服关于参与试验的谣言时,决定将信任置于何处至关重要:现有的决策模型有助于理解父母、青少年和研究人员之间的动态关系,但却忽视了更广泛的重要社会影响和信任的基本性质。儿童在讨论中的作用可以用同意原则来评估:自主、自由和信息。关系自主等概念有助于解释家庭用来协商复杂的同意决定的机制。虽然受访者支持维持父母的法定同意,但研究人员必须设计以儿童为中心的同意程序,以确保整个家庭的决策过程得到支持。
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
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
A case study of Muslims' perspectives of expanded terminal sedation:addressing the elephant in the room. Ethical issues in vaccine trial participation by adolescents: qualitative insights on family decision making from a human papillomavirus vaccine trial in Tanzania. Scoping review and thematic analysis of informed consent in humanitarian emergencies. Healthcare workers' opinions on non-medical criteria for prioritisation of access to care during the pandemic. "I think all of us should have […] much better training in ethics." Ethical challenges in policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from an interview study with Swiss policy makers and scientists.
×
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