不同癌症诊断的临床试验参与者的知情同意。

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-03 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2023.2262992
Connie M Ulrich, Sarah J Ratcliffe, Camille J Hochheimer, Qiuping Zhou, Liming Huang, Thomas Gordon, Kathleen Knafl, Therese Richmond, Marilyn M Schapira, Victoria Miller, Jun J Mao, Mary Naylor, Christine Grady
{"title":"不同癌症诊断的临床试验参与者的知情同意。","authors":"Connie M Ulrich, Sarah J Ratcliffe, Camille J Hochheimer, Qiuping Zhou, Liming Huang, Thomas Gordon, Kathleen Knafl, Therese Richmond, Marilyn M Schapira, Victoria Miller, Jun J Mao, Mary Naylor, Christine Grady","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2023.2262992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.</p><p><strong>Design and setting and participants: </strong>Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (<i>N</i> = 334).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"165-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492203/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Informed Consent among Clinical Trial Participants with Different Cancer Diagnoses.\",\"authors\":\"Connie M Ulrich, Sarah J Ratcliffe, Camille J Hochheimer, Qiuping Zhou, Liming Huang, Thomas Gordon, Kathleen Knafl, Therese Richmond, Marilyn M Schapira, Victoria Miller, Jun J Mao, Mary Naylor, Christine Grady\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23294515.2023.2262992\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.</p><p><strong>Design and setting and participants: </strong>Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (<i>N</i> = 334).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"165-177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11492203/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB Empirical Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2023.2262992\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2023.2262992","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:知情同意对伦理、严格的研究至关重要,对癌症试验的招募和保留也很重要。目的:研究癌症临床试验(CCT)参与者对知情同意过程的认知以及癌症类型认知的变化。设计、设置和参与者:在国家癌症研究所指定的东北癌症综合中心进行混合方法研究的交叉截面调查。开放式和强迫选择项目涉及:(1)登记和知情同意经历;(2)决策过程,包括风险收益评估。资格:患有胃肠道或泌尿生殖道、血液系统-淋巴系统恶性肿瘤、肺癌癌症和乳腺或妇科癌症的CCT参与者(N = 334).主要结果衡量标准:对同意程序和提供的信息感到满意的百分比;以及评估参与对风险/收益的看法。多因素逻辑回归或有序回归检验了癌症类型的差异。结果:大多数患者参与者感觉同意过程很好(超过90%的患者和癌症类型)和。大多数人(87.4%)报告说,同意书提供了他们想要的所有信息,尽管近一半(44.8%)的人报告说,他们读得有点仔细或不太仔细。超过一半(57.9%)的人表示,与研究人员交谈(即同意程序)比阅读同意书(2.1%)对参与决策的影响更大。三分之一(31.1%)的人非常确定在知情同意程序之前参与研究(几乎一半的癌症患者在同意之前参与了研究)。大多数患者在同意前亲自评估了风险和益处。然而,对医生的信任在决定加入CCT中发挥了重要作用。结论和相关性:癌症患者较少依赖知情同意程序的书面特征,而更多依赖从研究人员和他们自己的医生那里获得的信息。研究应侧重于支持转诊医生、研究人员和其他人知情同意的信息和沟通策略,以改进患者风险收益评估和决策。
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
Informed Consent among Clinical Trial Participants with Different Cancer Diagnoses.

Importance: Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.

Objective: To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.

Design and setting and participants: Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334).

Main outcome measures: Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.

Results: Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.

Conclusions and relevance: Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.

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
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
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