Therapeutic Misconception about Research Procedures: Does a Simple Information Chart Improve Understanding?

Q2 Social Sciences Ethics & human research Pub Date : 2022-02-26 DOI:10.1002/eahr.500120
Gavin Campbell, Margie D. Dixon, Minisha Lohani, John Cook, Rachel Hianik, Mary Catherine Thomson, Eli Abernethy, Colleen Lewis, Jeffrey Switchenko, R. Donald Harvey, Rebecca D. Pentz
{"title":"Therapeutic Misconception about Research Procedures: Does a Simple Information Chart Improve Understanding?","authors":"Gavin Campbell,&nbsp;Margie D. Dixon,&nbsp;Minisha Lohani,&nbsp;John Cook,&nbsp;Rachel Hianik,&nbsp;Mary Catherine Thomson,&nbsp;Eli Abernethy,&nbsp;Colleen Lewis,&nbsp;Jeffrey Switchenko,&nbsp;R. Donald Harvey,&nbsp;Rebecca D. Pentz","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study's aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"44 2","pages":"18-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study's aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.

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
治疗对研究程序的误解:一个简单的信息图表能增进理解吗?
在I期试验中,一些生物标本既用于研究,也用于病人护理,而另一些仅用于研究。一些研究参与者对治疗有误解,认为所有的生物标本都是用于病人治疗的。这项研究的目的是测试一个简单的信息图表是否能提高对非治疗性研究程序的理解。进行了一项两组研究。对照组(C)的参与者被问及生物标本是用于他们的护理,仅用于研究,还是两者兼而有之。实验组(E)被问及同样的问题,但提供了一个研究特定的信息图表,标记每个生物标本的目的。对101名患者进行了访谈。在两组中,对预处理抽血用于患者护理和研究的理解程度中等(C组为49%,E组为62%)。对治疗后抽血仅用于研究的理解程度在实验组中显著更高(C组为16%,E组为44%;P = 0.002)。提供一个简单的信息图表可能有助于减轻这方面的治疗误解。
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
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Issue Information (Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance Ethical Considerations for Conducting Community-Engaged Research with Women Experiencing Homelessness and Incarcerated Women Investigating Moral Distress in Clinical Research Professionals—A Deep Dive into Troubled Waters Issue Information
×
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