分享实用临床试验综合结果的伦理考虑。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1177/17407745241290782
Stephanie R Morain, Abigail Brickler, Joseph Ali, Patricia Pearl O'Rourke, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Benjamin Wilfond, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Caleigh Propes, Kayla Mehl, David Wendler
{"title":"分享实用临床试验综合结果的伦理考虑。","authors":"Stephanie R Morain, Abigail Brickler, Joseph Ali, Patricia Pearl O'Rourke, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Benjamin Wilfond, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Caleigh Propes, Kayla Mehl, David Wendler","doi":"10.1177/17407745241290782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A growing literature has explored the ethical obligations and current practices related to sharing aggregate results with research participants. However, no prior work has examined these issues in the context of pragmatic clinical trials. Several characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials may complicate both the ethics and the logistics of sharing aggregate results. Among these characteristics include that pragmatic clinical trials may affect the rights, welfare, and interests of not only patient-subjects but also clinicians, meaning that results may be owed to a broader range of groups than typically considered in other research contexts. In addition, some pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under a waiver of informed consent, meaning sharing results may alert participants that they were enrolled without their consent. This article explores the ethical dimensions that can inform decision-making about sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials, and provides recommendations for that sharing. A central insight is that healthcare institutions-as key partners for the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials-must also be key partners in decision-making about sharing aggregate pragmatic clinical trial results. We conclude with insights for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"17407745241290782"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical considerations for sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie R Morain, Abigail Brickler, Joseph Ali, Patricia Pearl O'Rourke, Kayte Spector-Bagdady, Benjamin Wilfond, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Caleigh Propes, Kayla Mehl, David Wendler\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745241290782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A growing literature has explored the ethical obligations and current practices related to sharing aggregate results with research participants. However, no prior work has examined these issues in the context of pragmatic clinical trials. Several characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials may complicate both the ethics and the logistics of sharing aggregate results. Among these characteristics include that pragmatic clinical trials may affect the rights, welfare, and interests of not only patient-subjects but also clinicians, meaning that results may be owed to a broader range of groups than typically considered in other research contexts. In addition, some pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under a waiver of informed consent, meaning sharing results may alert participants that they were enrolled without their consent. This article explores the ethical dimensions that can inform decision-making about sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials, and provides recommendations for that sharing. A central insight is that healthcare institutions-as key partners for the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials-must also be key partners in decision-making about sharing aggregate pragmatic clinical trial results. We conclude with insights for future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17407745241290782\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241290782\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241290782","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的文献探讨了与研究参与者共享综合结果的相关伦理义务和现行做法。然而,此前还没有研究在实用临床试验的背景下探讨过这些问题。务实临床试验的几个特点可能会使共享总体结果的伦理和后勤问题变得更加复杂。这些特点包括:务实临床试验不仅会影响患者受试者的权利、福利和利益,还会影响临床医生的权利、福利和利益,这意味着与其他研究相比,试验结果可能会涉及更广泛的群体。此外,一些实用临床试验是在放弃知情同意的情况下进行的,这意味着共享结果可能会提醒参与者,他们是在未经同意的情况下参加试验的。本文探讨了伦理方面的问题,这些问题可以为共享实用临床试验的总体结果提供决策依据,并为共享提供建议。其中一个核心观点是,医疗机构作为开展实用临床试验的关键合作伙伴,也必须成为共享实用临床试验总体结果决策的关键合作伙伴。最后,我们提出了对未来研究的见解。
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
Ethical considerations for sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials.

A growing literature has explored the ethical obligations and current practices related to sharing aggregate results with research participants. However, no prior work has examined these issues in the context of pragmatic clinical trials. Several characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials may complicate both the ethics and the logistics of sharing aggregate results. Among these characteristics include that pragmatic clinical trials may affect the rights, welfare, and interests of not only patient-subjects but also clinicians, meaning that results may be owed to a broader range of groups than typically considered in other research contexts. In addition, some pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under a waiver of informed consent, meaning sharing results may alert participants that they were enrolled without their consent. This article explores the ethical dimensions that can inform decision-making about sharing aggregate results from pragmatic clinical trials, and provides recommendations for that sharing. A central insight is that healthcare institutions-as key partners for the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials-must also be key partners in decision-making about sharing aggregate pragmatic clinical trial results. We conclude with insights for future research.

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
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the use of text-message reminders and personalised text-message reminders on the return of participant questionnaires in trials, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Impact of differences between interim and post-interim analysis populations on outcomes of a group sequential trial: Example of the MOVe-OUT study. From RAGs to riches: Utilizing large language models to write documents for clinical trials. Hybrid sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials using assurance. Characterization of studies considered and required under Medicare's coverage with evidence development program.
×
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