重塑 "同意",我们可以改进参与者的选择(III)--目前如何检查研究参与者的理解,我们可以如何改进这一过程?

Hugh T Davies, S. Kolstoe, Anthony Lockett
{"title":"重塑 \"同意\",我们可以改进参与者的选择(III)--目前如何检查研究参与者的理解,我们可以如何改进这一过程?","authors":"Hugh T Davies, S. Kolstoe, Anthony Lockett","doi":"10.1177/17470161241235910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals ( n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written material. We propose ways this interactive conversation can be documented, and the process of checking understanding improved.","PeriodicalId":510000,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (III) – How is the research participant’s understanding currently checked and how might we improve this process?\",\"authors\":\"Hugh T Davies, S. Kolstoe, Anthony Lockett\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470161241235910\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals ( n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written material. We propose ways this interactive conversation can be documented, and the process of checking understanding improved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":510000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241235910\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241235910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有效的同意要求潜在的研究参与者理解所提供的信息。我们研究了 50 项拟议的研究用医药产品临床试验的现行做法,以确定如何检查这种理解。大多数提议(n = 44)表示,确认理解将在研究者和潜在参与者之间的互动对话中进行,其中包含评估和确定理解的问题。然而,到目前为止,研究设计和审查还没有关注到这一点,而更多地集中在书面材料上。我们提出了记录这种互动对话的方法,并改进了确认理解的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (III) – How is the research participant’s understanding currently checked and how might we improve this process?
Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals ( n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written material. We propose ways this interactive conversation can be documented, and the process of checking understanding improved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conceptualizing dual use: A multidimensional approach Applying Ethics in the Handling of Dual Use Research: The Case of Germany Between urgency and data quality: assessing the FAIRness of data in social science research on the COVID-19 pandemic Expanding the ethical debate on human artificial placenta trials Research ethics preparedness during outbreaks and public health emergencies: Focus on community engagement
×
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