Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1177/15562646211060997
Laura B Dunn, Jane P Kim, Maryam Rostami, Sangeeta Mondal, Katie Ryan, Asees Waraich, Laura Weiss Roberts, Barton W Palmer
This study evaluated stakeholders' perspectives regarding participation in two hypothetical neuromodulation trials focused on individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs). Stakeholders (i.e., individuals at risk for ADRDs [n = 56], individuals with experience as a caregiver for someone with a cognitive disorder [n = 60], and comparison respondents [n = 124]) were recruited via MTurk. Primary outcomes were willingness to enroll (or enroll one's loved one), feeling lucky to have the opportunity to enroll, and feeling obligated to enroll in two protocols (transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS; deep brain stimulation, DBS). Relative to the Comparison group, the At Risk group endorsed higher levels of "feeling lucky" regarding both research protocols, and higher willingness to participate in the TMS protocol. These findings provide tentative reassurance regarding the nature of decision making regarding neurotechnology-based research on ADRDs. Further work is needed to evaluate the full range of potential influences on research participation.
{"title":"Stakeholders' Perspectives regarding Participation in Neuromodulation-Based Dementia Intervention Research.","authors":"Laura B Dunn, Jane P Kim, Maryam Rostami, Sangeeta Mondal, Katie Ryan, Asees Waraich, Laura Weiss Roberts, Barton W Palmer","doi":"10.1177/15562646211060997","DOIUrl":"10.1177/15562646211060997","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated stakeholders' perspectives regarding participation in two hypothetical neuromodulation trials focused on individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs). Stakeholders (i.e., individuals at risk for ADRDs [<i>n</i> = 56], individuals with experience as a caregiver for someone with a cognitive disorder [<i>n</i> = 60], and comparison respondents [<i>n</i> = 124]) were recruited via MTurk. Primary outcomes were willingness to enroll (or enroll one's loved one), feeling lucky to have the opportunity to enroll, and feeling obligated to enroll in two protocols (transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS; deep brain stimulation, DBS). Relative to the Comparison group, the At Risk group endorsed higher levels of \"feeling lucky\" regarding both research protocols, and higher willingness to participate in the TMS protocol. These findings provide tentative reassurance regarding the nature of decision making regarding neurotechnology-based research on ADRDs. Further work is needed to evaluate the full range of potential influences on research participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9631956/pdf/nihms-1753604.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39696080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-08-20DOI: 10.1177/15562646211034275
Ji-Hye Seo, Ock-Joo Kim, Sang-Ho Yoo, Eun Kyung Choi, Ji-Eun Park
The phase I trial is the first step in administering a drug to humans, but it has no therapeutic purpose. Under the absence of therapeutic purpose, healthy volunteers demonstrated different motivations, unlike the actual patients participating in trials. There were many reported motivations, such as financial motivation, contributing to the health science, accessing ancillary health care benefits, scientific interest or interest in the goals of the study, meeting people, and general curiosity. The aim of this study was to identify the motivation and characteristics of healthy volunteers participating in phase I trials in the Republic of Korea. We gave surveys to 121 healthy volunteers to study their demographic characteristics and the reasons of participation. We identified whether the decision to participate in the research was influenced by demographic factors and whether the perception and attitudes toward the research were influenced by the characteristics of the healthy volunteers. After completion of the first survey, 12 healthy volunteers who had participated in a phase I clinical trial were selected to answer the second interview. According to our survey, most healthy volunteers were unmarried men and economically dependent. Most of them participated in the study because of financial reward. The most important factor to measure financial reward was the research period. Also, 43% of the volunteers were university students, 42% answered "university graduation" and 55% were residing in family-owned houses. Many healthy volunteers were found to be living in family homes and to have a student status or lack of economic independence. Results of the survey showed that 64% of respondents indicated having more than one clinical trial participation. In-depth interviews showed that healthy volunteers had diverse motivation to participate in research and that healthy volunteer perceive the clinical trial positively. The main motivation for healthy volunteers' participation in research was "financial reward." Healthy volunteers also considered research schedules, processes, and safety, and had a positive perception of clinical trials, but they thought that the public has a negative perception.
{"title":"A Study on the Characteristics of Healthy Volunteers who Participate in Phase I Clinical Trials in Korea.","authors":"Ji-Hye Seo, Ock-Joo Kim, Sang-Ho Yoo, Eun Kyung Choi, Ji-Eun Park","doi":"10.1177/15562646211034275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211034275","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The phase I trial is the first step in administering a drug to humans, but it has no therapeutic purpose. Under the absence of therapeutic purpose, healthy volunteers demonstrated different motivations, unlike the actual patients participating in trials. There were many reported motivations, such as financial motivation, contributing to the health science, accessing ancillary health care benefits, scientific interest or interest in the goals of the study, meeting people, and general curiosity. The aim of this study was to identify the motivation and characteristics of healthy volunteers participating in phase I trials in the Republic of Korea. We gave surveys to 121 healthy volunteers to study their demographic characteristics and the reasons of participation. We identified whether the decision to participate in the research was influenced by demographic factors and whether the perception and attitudes toward the research were influenced by the characteristics of the healthy volunteers. After completion of the first survey, 12 healthy volunteers who had participated in a phase I clinical trial were selected to answer the second interview. According to our survey, most healthy volunteers were unmarried men and economically dependent. Most of them participated in the study because of financial reward. The most important factor to measure financial reward was the research period. Also, 43% of the volunteers were university students, 42% answered \"university graduation\" and 55% were residing in family-owned houses. Many healthy volunteers were found to be living in family homes and to have a student status or lack of economic independence. Results of the survey showed that 64% of respondents indicated having more than one clinical trial participation. In-depth interviews showed that healthy volunteers had diverse motivation to participate in research and that healthy volunteer perceive the clinical trial positively. The main motivation for healthy volunteers' participation in research was \"financial reward.\" Healthy volunteers also considered research schedules, processes, and safety, and had a positive perception of clinical trials, but they thought that the public has a negative perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39328960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-10-12DOI: 10.1177/15562646211048294
Stephanie Taplin, Jenny Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, Morag McArthur
As part of a larger study, Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members and managers were surveyed about their decision-making and views about social research studies with child participants. Responses of 229 HREC members and 42 HREC managers are reported. While most HREC members had received ethical training, HREC training and guidelines specific to research involving children were rare. Most applications involving children had to go through a full ethical review, but few adverse events were reported to HRECs regarding the conduct of the studies. Revisions to study proposals requested by HRECs were mostly related to consent processes and age-appropriate language. One-third of HREC members said that they would approve research on any topic. Most were also concerned that the methodology was appropriate, and the risks and benefits were clearly articulated. Specific training and guidance are needed to increase HREC members' confidence to judge ethical research with children.
{"title":"Human Research Ethics Committee Experiences and Views About Children's Participation in Research: Results From the <i>MESSI</i> Study.","authors":"Stephanie Taplin, Jenny Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, Morag McArthur","doi":"10.1177/15562646211048294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211048294","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As part of a larger study, Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members and managers were surveyed about their decision-making and views about social research studies with child participants. Responses of 229 HREC members and 42 HREC managers are reported. While most HREC members had received ethical training, HREC training and guidelines specific to research involving children were rare. Most applications involving children had to go through a full ethical review, but few adverse events were reported to HRECs regarding the conduct of the studies. Revisions to study proposals requested by HRECs were mostly related to consent processes and age-appropriate language. One-third of HREC members said that they would approve research on any topic. Most were also concerned that the methodology was appropriate, and the risks and benefits were clearly articulated. Specific training and guidance are needed to increase HREC members' confidence to judge ethical research with children.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39510072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-11-22DOI: 10.1177/15562646211053234
Linda Kateb, Sawsan El-Jayousi, Maysa Al-Hussaini
The problem: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. The research subjects: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. Methods: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. Results: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. Conclusion: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.
{"title":"An Overview of King Hussein Cancer Center Institutional Review Board Over 12 Years (2009-2020), Successes and Challenges, Including Those Imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Linda Kateb, Sawsan El-Jayousi, Maysa Al-Hussaini","doi":"10.1177/15562646211053234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211053234","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>The problem</i>: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. <i>The research subjects</i>: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. <i>Methods</i>: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. <i>Results</i>: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. <i>Conclusion</i>: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39646038","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-12-06DOI: 10.1177/15562646211062707
Andrea R Kaniuka, Meagan Zarwell, Robert J Cramer, Katherine Quinn, Michelle Broaddus, Alexandra Patton, Jennifer L Walsh
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) continues to disproportionately affect gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and transgender and nonbinary (trans/NB) individuals. This study investigated attitudes toward participation in HIV survey research, guided by Emanuel's framework for ethical clinical research (e.g., risk-benefit ratio, fair participant selection, respect for participants, social value, and collaborative partnership). GBM (n = 294) and trans/NB (n = 86) persons recruited at a Pride event in Milwaukee completed a survey assessing risks and benefits of participation in, and comfort responding to, sexual health surveys. Participants reported few ethical concerns (e.g., privacy and confidentiality), with notable differences by race, sexual orientation and gender identity, and prior research experiences. Implications for HIV research with GBM and trans/NB individuals are discussed.
{"title":"Perceptions of HIV Research Participation Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men who Have Sex with Men and Transgender and Nonbinary Adults: Results From a Midwest Pride Event.","authors":"Andrea R Kaniuka, Meagan Zarwell, Robert J Cramer, Katherine Quinn, Michelle Broaddus, Alexandra Patton, Jennifer L Walsh","doi":"10.1177/15562646211062707","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211062707","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) continues to disproportionately affect gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and transgender and nonbinary (trans/NB) individuals. This study investigated attitudes toward participation in HIV survey research, guided by Emanuel's framework for ethical clinical research (e.g., risk-benefit ratio, fair participant selection, respect for participants, social value, and collaborative partnership). GBM (<i>n</i> = 294) and trans/NB (<i>n</i> = 86) persons recruited at a Pride event in Milwaukee completed a survey assessing risks and benefits of participation in, and comfort responding to, sexual health surveys. Participants reported few ethical concerns (e.g., privacy and confidentiality), with notable differences by race, sexual orientation and gender identity, and prior research experiences. Implications for HIV research with GBM and trans/NB individuals are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39946429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-11-15DOI: 10.1177/15562646211055056
Adrianna Surmiak, Beata Bielska, Katarzyna Kalinowska
The global COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine/distancing measures have forced researchers to cope with a new situation. This paper aimed to analyze how the pandemic and its associated constraints have affected social researchers' approach to research ethics. Drawing on an online qualitative survey with 193 Polish social researchers conducted in April and May 2020, we distinguished three approaches: nothing has changed, opportunity-oriented, and precautionary. According to the first, the pandemic was not regarded as a situation that required additional reflection on ethical issues or changes in research approaches. By contrast, the other two were based on the assumption that the pandemic affected research project ethics. The difference was in the assessment of changes in the area of ethics. The pandemic presented an opportunity and a threat to the ethicality of research, respectively. We discuss the implications of all three approaches for research and education.
{"title":"Social Researchers' Approaches to Research Ethics During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study.","authors":"Adrianna Surmiak, Beata Bielska, Katarzyna Kalinowska","doi":"10.1177/15562646211055056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211055056","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The global COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine/distancing measures have forced researchers to cope with a new situation. This paper aimed to analyze how the pandemic and its associated constraints have affected social researchers' approach to research ethics. Drawing on an online qualitative survey with 193 Polish social researchers conducted in April and May 2020, we distinguished three approaches: <i>nothing has changed</i>, <i>opportunity-oriented</i>, and <i>precautionary</i>. According to the first, the pandemic was not regarded as a situation that required additional reflection on ethical issues or changes in research approaches. By contrast, the other two were based on the assumption that the pandemic affected research project ethics. The difference was in the assessment of changes in the area of ethics. The pandemic presented an opportunity and a threat to the ethicality of research, respectively. We discuss the implications of all three approaches for research and education.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39878294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-08-19DOI: 10.1177/15562646211037546
Erin D Solomon, Jessica Mozersky, Matthew P Wroblewski, Kari Baldwin, Meredith V Parsons, Melody Goodman, James M DuBois
Recent revisions to the Common Rule require that consent documents begin with a focused presentation of the study's key information that is organized to facilitate understanding. We surveyed 1,284 researchers working with older adults or individuals with Alzheimer's disease, supplemented with 60 qualitative interviews, to understand current use and barriers to using evidence-based formatting and plain language in key information. Researchers reported using formatting in 42% of their key information sections, and plain language in 63% of their key information sections. Perceived barriers included lack of knowledge, Institutional Review Board, other members of their team, and the burden associated with implementation. Education and training are required to increase adoption of the practices.
{"title":"Understanding the Use of Optimal Formatting and Plain Language When Presenting Key Information in Clinical Trials.","authors":"Erin D Solomon, Jessica Mozersky, Matthew P Wroblewski, Kari Baldwin, Meredith V Parsons, Melody Goodman, James M DuBois","doi":"10.1177/15562646211037546","DOIUrl":"10.1177/15562646211037546","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent revisions to the Common Rule require that consent documents begin with a focused presentation of the study's key information that is organized to facilitate understanding. We surveyed 1,284 researchers working with older adults or individuals with Alzheimer's disease, supplemented with 60 qualitative interviews, to understand current use and barriers to using evidence-based formatting and plain language in key information. Researchers reported using formatting in 42% of their key information sections, and plain language in 63% of their key information sections. Perceived barriers included lack of knowledge, Institutional Review Board, other members of their team, and the burden associated with implementation. Education and training are required to increase adoption of the practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8712347/pdf/nihms-1726503.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39326069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-11-15DOI: 10.1177/15562646211055282
T J Kasperbauer, Colin Halverson, Abby Garcia, Peter H Schwartz
Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms.
{"title":"Biobank Participants' Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks.","authors":"T J Kasperbauer, Colin Halverson, Abby Garcia, Peter H Schwartz","doi":"10.1177/15562646211055282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211055282","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Biobank participants are often unaware of possible uses of their genetic and health information, despite explicit descriptions of those uses in consent forms. To explore why this misunderstanding persists, we conducted semi-structured interviews and knowledge tests with 22 participants who had recently enrolled in a research biobank. Results indicated that participants lacked understanding of privacy and data-sharing topics but were mostly unconcerned about associated risks. Participants described their answers on the knowledge test as largely driven by their trust in the healthcare system, not by a close reading of the information presented to them. This finding may help explain the difficulties in increasing participant understanding of privacy-related topics, even when such information is clearly presented in biobank consent forms.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39878297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01Epub Date: 2021-08-19DOI: 10.1177/15562646211038819
Christian M Simon, Kai Wang, Laura A Shinkunas, Daniel T Stein, Paul Meissner, Maureen Smith, Rebecca Pentz, David W Klein
Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.
一些人对知情同意(IC)信息的理解可能会随着电子文件的提供而得到改善,但另一些人可能会从面对面(F2F)中受益。这项随机、多地点研究探讨了来自不同背景的个人如何理解电子 IC 文件与面对面文件、他们对理解的信心以及研究注册情况。共有 501 名来自美国两个不同人群的生物库的患者参与了这项研究。对电子文件和面对面文件的理解总体上没有差异,但面对面文件会使理解和注册的信心更高。种族和教育水平越高,对电子同意书的理解和信心越高。研究结果表明,对于社会经济地位较高的非西班牙裔患者来说,电子同意书可能会让他们更好地理解。F2F流程可能会让西班牙裔和社会经济地位较低的患者更好地理解,注册率也会更高。研究人员应仔细考虑如何实施电子 IC 流程,以及是否保留 F2F 流程,以更好地满足某些人群的需求和局限性。
{"title":"Communicating With Diverse Patients About Participating in a Biobank: A Randomized Multisite Study Comparing Electronic and Face-to-Face Informed Consent Processes.","authors":"Christian M Simon, Kai Wang, Laura A Shinkunas, Daniel T Stein, Paul Meissner, Maureen Smith, Rebecca Pentz, David W Klein","doi":"10.1177/15562646211038819","DOIUrl":"10.1177/15562646211038819","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Some individuals' understanding of informed consent (IC) information may improve with electronic delivery, but others may benefit from face-to-face (F2F). This randomized, multisite study explores how individuals from diverse backgrounds understand electronic IC documents versus F2F, their confidence in understanding, and enrollment in research. A total of 501 patients at two U.S. biobanks with diverse populations participated. There were no overall differences between electronic and F2F understanding, but F2F predicted higher confidence in understanding and enrollment. Ethnicity and a higher educational level predicted higher understanding and confidence. Study findings suggest that electronic consent may lead to better understanding for non-Hispanic patients of higher socioeconomic status. F2F processes may lead to better understanding and higher enrollment of patients from Hispanic and lower socioeconomic levels. Researchers should carefully consider how they implement electronic IC processes and whether to maintain an F2F process to better address the needs and limitations of some populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8712348/pdf/nihms-1728143.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39326079","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-01Epub Date: 2021-09-13DOI: 10.1177/15562646211040299
Xiaojie Li, Yali Cong
Although stakeholders in China have begun promoting medical and public health data sharing, a large portion of data cannot flow freely across research teams and borders and be converted into "big data." To identify the ethical challenges that are considered to hinder medical and public health data sharing, we performed a systematic literature review pertaining to medical and health data sharing in China. A total of 2959 unique records were retrieved through the database search, 61 of which were included in the final synthesis after full-text screening. This review provides an overview of the current ethical challenges and barriers involved in data sharing for healthcare purposes in China. Through the systematic review of evidence from peer-reviewed literature and dissertations, we identified barriers and ethical challenges grouped in a taxonomy of capacity building needs, balancing different stakeholders' interests, scientific and social value, and the data subjects' rights, public trust and engagement. Best practices and educational implications were suggested based on our findings.
{"title":"A Systematic Literature Review of Ethical Challenges Related to Medical and Public Health Data Sharing in China.","authors":"Xiaojie Li, Yali Cong","doi":"10.1177/15562646211040299","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211040299","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although stakeholders in China have begun promoting medical and public health data sharing, a large portion of data cannot flow freely across research teams and borders and be converted into \"big data.\" To identify the ethical challenges that are considered to hinder medical and public health data sharing, we performed a systematic literature review pertaining to medical and health data sharing in China. A total of 2959 unique records were retrieved through the database search, 61 of which were included in the final synthesis after full-text screening. This review provides an overview of the current ethical challenges and barriers involved in data sharing for healthcare purposes in China. Through the systematic review of evidence from peer-reviewed literature and dissertations, we identified barriers and ethical challenges grouped in a taxonomy of capacity building needs, balancing different stakeholders' interests, scientific and social value, and the data subjects' rights, public trust and engagement. Best practices and educational implications were suggested based on our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39412810","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}