Ethics & human research最新文献

The use of a placebo has been considered the best method for controlling bias in a prospective randomized clinical trial and provides the most rigorous test of treatment efficacy for evaluating a medical therapy. Placebos commonly produce clinically important effects particularly in studies where the primary outcomes are subjective. Yet the potential beneficial or harmful effects of placebos are often not addressed in designing a clinical trial, calculating the sample size, seeking consent, or interpreting clinical trial results. In this manuscript, we use an actual study to indicate three approaches that might be considered in seeking informed consent for placebo-controlled trials, and we explore the fundamental ethical and scientific complexities involved with each.

Phase I healthy volunteer trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational pharmaceuticals. In them, participants are exposed to study-drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and typically must spend days or weeks in a residential research facility. Monetary payments are used to incentivize enrollment and compensate participants for their time. Together, these features of phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, including by enrolling disproportionate numbers of economically disadvantaged people of color as participants. Due to these unique trial features and participation patterns, traditional biomedical research oversight offers inadequate ethical and policy guidance for phase I healthy volunteer research. This article details five ethical criteria crafted to be responsive to the particularities of this type of research: translational science value, fair opportunity and burden sharing, fair compensation for service, experiential welfare, and enhanced voice and recourse.

Research biopsies included in cancer clinical trials have the goal of advancing scientific understanding of the biological bases of cancer and its treatments, but may offer no prospect of direct benefit to participants and often pose more than minimal risk. The research community is examining the ethics of research biopsies increasingly often, especially when they are mandatory for study participation but do not support primary study objectives and thus are “nonintegral” to the study. Ethical concerns center on the limited scientific justification supporting some biopsies, risks to research participants, and the potential for coercion and therapeutic misconception during the informed consent process. There is also a lack of comprehensive oversight of research biopsies by regulatory agencies and institutions. This paper reviews these ethical concerns, discusses the scope of federal oversight, and suggests that institutional review boards (IRBs) should assume a larger role in ensuring the ethical conduct of research biopsies. It concludes with guidance to IRBs on how to weigh the risks, benefits, and acceptability of such biopsies in different contexts that is based on a framework the American Society of Clinical Oncology developed for the inclusion of research biopsies in oncology clinical trials.

Biobanks and health data repositories provide rich reservoirs of information for use in biomedical research. These repositories depend on participants donating identifiable health data and biospecimens that may be used in perpetuity by unlimited numbers of researchers for unnamed research topics. Since 1991, U.S. federal regulatory provisions, collectively known as the Common Rule, have required informed consent of participants in federally funded human subjects research, but recent changes to the Common Rule now sanction “broad consent” in the repository research context. Broad consent is not defined in the revised Common Rule; thus, researchers and their institutions are left to determine ad hoc what broad consent means and requires. Without leadership and guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, stakeholders with potential conflicts of interest will reach their own conclusions and craft new and varied standards for consent. The result will be uneven protections for participants.

The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented restrictions on many public, private, and workplace activities throughout the United States and elsewhere. When restrictions were imposed, we were conducting a type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial in 10 pediatric trauma centers. In response to several pandemic-based restrictions, we had to develop procedures for engaging with potential research participants while limiting nonclinical, in-person interactions. This manuscript describes the procedures and challenges of obtaining electronic informed consent and assent in a multisite trauma center-based research study. We developed, tested, and trained staff to implement three options for obtaining informed consent. Twenty-five participants were enrolled in the effectiveness-implementation multisite trial during the first six months of utilization of the consent options, with eleven of these individuals enrolled using hybrid or electronic consent procedures. The challenges we identified involving electronic consent procedures included confusion over who would complete the electronic consent process and difficulties reconnecting with families. Lessons learned can strengthen electronic consent and assent procedures for future studies. More research is needed to further strengthen this process and increase its utilization.

Minority populations have been underrepresented in clinical trials, as well as in research biobanks that are created to conduct research with participants' biospecimens and related medical and research data. Biobank research raises issues about informed consent and privacy and the confidentiality of participants' personal data. Our study involved three focus groups of 10 adults each that were conducted in a medically underserved, predominantly African American community to elucidate questions and concerns regarding an institutional biobank. Transcripts from the discussion were qualitatively analyzed. Three main themes that arose from the focus groups included the importance of trust, the importance of the community in research, and suggestions to improve trust. The concerns identified in this study provide a starting point for future research to help research institutions become more trustworthy to the communities they serve.

We assessed public perspectives of microbiome research privacy risks before and after a nationwide emergency was declared in the United States regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. From January to July of 2020, we conducted an online survey of perceived privacy risks of microbiome research among U.S. adults. Among 3,106 participants (the preemergency group), most expressed that the microbiome posed privacy risks similar to those associated with DNA (60.3%) or medical records (50.6%) and that they would prefer detailed explanations (70.2%) of risk in consent materials. Only 8.9% reported moderate to high familiarity with microbiome privacy risks. In adjusted analyses, individuals who participated in the study after the Covid-19 emergency was declared (the Covid-19 emergency group) were less likely to express that microbiome privacy risks were similar to those of DNA or medical records and more likely to report familiarity with the privacy risks of microbiomes. There was a trend toward increased concern after the Covid-19 emergency was declared (p = 0.053). Overall, the study revealed that many U.S. adults believe that microbiome privacy risks are similar to those associated with DNA or medical records, and they prefer detailed explanations in consent documents. Individuals who participated after the Covid-19 emergency was declared reported greater knowledge of microbiome privacy risks but had more concern.

Much of precision medicine is driven by big health data research—the analysis of massive datasets representing the complex web of genetic, behavioral, environmental, and other factors that impact human well-being. There are some who point to the Common Rule, the regulation governing federally funded human subjects research, as a regulatory panacea for all types of big health data research. But how well does the Common Rule fit the regulatory needs of this type of research? This article suggests that harms that may arise from artificial intelligence and machine-learning technologies used in big health data research—and the increased likelihood that this research will affect public policy—mean it is time to consider whether the current human research regulations prohibit comprehensive, ethical review of big health data research that may result in group harm.

We sought to investigate the experiences of researchers in existing active-control trials in acute ischemic stroke comparing investigational therapy to tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in order to identify the approaches and challenges in obtaining informed consent. Out of 401 articles evaluated, 14 trials met inclusion criteria. Trial representatives were contacted to complete a survey concerning the consent process. None of the 14 trials published materials related to the informed consent process. Trials with 75% to 100% of patients directly consented had shorter door-to-treatment (DTT) times than trials that directly consented less than 50% of patients. Trials that had translators available (for recruiting participants who were not native speakers in the local language) and translated consent documents had longer DTT times. The study findings suggest that differences in the standards of informed consent internationally may allow more patients with moderate strokes to provide direct consent without delaying DTT time. Future trials should emphasize transparency to the public and scientific community in the informed consent process.

Research participants should be drawn as fairly as possible from the potential volunteer population. Underlying personality traits are underexplored as factors influencing research decision-making. Dispositional optimism, known to affect coping, physical health, and psychological well-being, has been minimally studied with respect to research-related attitudes. We conducted an exploratory, online survey with 151 individuals (with self-reported mental illness [n = 50], physical illness [n = 51], or neither [n = 50]) recruited via MTurk. We evaluated associations between dispositional optimism (assessed with the Life Orientation Test—Revised) and general research attitudes, perceived protectiveness of five research safeguards, and willingness to participate in research using safeguards. Strongly optimistic respondents expressed more positive research attitudes and perceived four safeguards as more positively influencing willingness to participate. Optimism was positively associated with expressed willingness to participate in clinical research. Our findings add to a limited literature on the influence of individual traits on ethically salient research perspectives.