Proposing modesty for informed consent

The extension of informed consent into social science research has met with considerable opposition. The history and concept of informed consent, however, is based on a substantive ethical notion of the research relationship as informed and voluntary that is appropriate for social science research relationships. Yet social science research might sometimes be different from health research in ways that justify a different approach to informed consent and research relationships. Social science research tends to have a lower magnitude of risk, usually does not need to disrupt the therapeutic assumption common in health research contexts or when researchers are health professionals, and recruitment is sometimes incremental and reflects a building of trust and development of the research participant's role. These differences may sometimes justify novel approaches to the research relationship and require case-by-case evaluation to determine their relevance to establishing the informed and voluntary nature of the relationship through the use of informed consent procedures. Ultimately, respect for research participants requires social research into practices that can support or replace informed consent. The institutional role of informed consent and the goal of informed and voluntary research participation serve modest but important roles in health and social research. Their proper role in health and social research requires flexibility and experimentation, but does not justify abdication of informed consent or the notion of informed and voluntary participation.     

医学期刊编辑对生物医学研究伦理问题的处理方式调研及建议

【目的】 探讨医学期刊编辑处理生物医学研究伦理问题的方式,为推动确立医学期刊伦理审查规范提供参考。【方法】 通过问卷星向国内医学期刊编辑发放调查问卷,对审稿时和论文出版后处理医学伦理相关问题的方式展开调研。【结果】 共回收问卷230份。调查显示:在审稿阶段,在保护患者隐私方面,英文期刊、中英双语期刊的编辑更注重要求作者提供授权同意相关证明材料;中、英文期刊以及中英双语期刊的编辑对涉及人体试验伦理问题的处理方式都比较规范。但是,对于研究是否获得患者知情同意、动物实验研究是否经过伦理委员会审查、回顾性研究是否需要伦理审查、涉及人的研究是否在临床试验注册中心注册等问题,编辑还需要进一步重视。在论文出版后,编辑发现的医学伦理问题主要是“涉及人的研究未说明是否经过伦理委员会审查”。对论文出版后发现的没有保护患者隐私和没有在临床试验注册中心注册的问题,大部分期刊缺乏相关处理方案。【结论】 编辑应加强对论文知情同意、动物实验伦理、回顾性研究伦理的审查,并审查涉及人的研究是否在临床试验注册中心注册,以推动我国医学期刊的高质量发展。     

Views of US researchers about informed consent in international collaborative research

Informed consent poses challenges in all settings. Challenges may be particularly great in international collaborative research, where cultural perspectives may differ, and where education levels and language may be barriers to participant understanding. We conducted a written survey and focus groups with US health researchers doing research in developing countries, asking about informed consent and other ethical issues in their research. We present here both qualitative and quantitative data relevant to informed consent. Qualitative data revealed that researchers' experiences and beliefs about informed consent fell into three paradigms: regulatory, community, and individual. The regulatory paradigm refers to researchers' views and practices relating to informed consent requirements of institutional review boards and other oversight bodies. The community paradigm refers to researchers' approach to the content and methodology of informed consent in the context of long-term relationships between research teams and study communities. Researchers emphasized the importance of these relationships for creating and maintaining communication fundamental to the informed consent process. Finally, the individual paradigm refers to researchers' views about individual participants' understanding and decision-making process regarding research. Researchers described community-level influences on participants' decision-making, but stressed the need for individual comprehension and voluntary participation. While these paradigms are distinct, they also are intertwined. Quantitative data supported the existence of these three paradigms in respondents' characterization of informed consent. Researchers frequently stated that legal language on the consent forms was meaningless (52%). Forty-four percent of researchers had consulted with community leaders, and 23% believed the consent process focuses too much on the individual, rather than on family or community. Most researchers (82%) reported that the consent process was an important means of educating participants about the study. Fifty-four percent of researchers believed participants did not understand placebos. Further research is needed to understand how culture and relationships affect research participation, and to provide information and dialogue among researchers, oversight bodies and community representatives about appropriate ways to approach informed consent in international research.     

A consumer perspective on informed consent and third-party issues.

Our two children were diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder, which led us to establish a research foundation. This led to in-depth consideration of issues surrounding informed consent from a consumer perspective. Third-party issues arose as central to the formulation of ethical policy in the establishment of a blood and tissue bank and an epidemiologic study. We suggest that a number of myths--privacy is possible, samples can be stripped of identifiers, humans are subjects, voluntary informed consent is attainable, genetics is about the individual only, genetic information is different than other medical information, research is altruistic, the public will learn truths about genetic research via media, and research is culturally competent--make it difficult to resolve the issues intrinsic to informed consent. A number of important elements could make policy decisions less complicated. These include conducting culturally competent research; conveying noncoercive hope, not hype; contacting the voluntary informant only; asking the informant to extend contact to other family members; requiring a comprehensive informed consent process for all contacted; and engaging in state-of-the-art data protections. There is a need for a "Genomic Hippocratic Oath," creating an ethical basis for research similar to the one vowed by health care professionals. Establishing ethical policies as a result of the collaboration of policy makers, researchers, and consumers will allow research to progress ethically at a rapid rate. If regulations are oppressive, they will thwart research; if they are too lenient, participants will not receive protections needed to participate safely.     

Genetics research and third parties: implications for education in the health professions.

Research that seeks information about the families of participants raises several questions regarding policy and the education of health professionals, including curriculum planning. The limits of individualism in health care and research, the moral grounding of informed consent and privacy and the moral and legal obligations of professionals in respecting them, the scientific promise and ethical perils of "geneticization," and responsible conduct in research are all topics to be included in the education of health professionals.     

Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice

In this paper we examine the application of informed consent to ethnographic research in health care settings. We do not quarrel with either the principle of informed consent or its translation into the requirement that research should only be carried out with consenting participants. However, we do challenge the identification of informed consent with the particular set of bureaucratic practices of ethical review which currently operate in Canada, the US and elsewhere. We argue that these anticipatory regulatory regimes threaten the significant contribution of ethnographic research to the creation of more efficient, more effective, more equitable and more humane health care systems. Informed consent in ethnographic research is neither achievable nor demonstrable in the terms set by anticipatory regulatory regimes that take clinical research or biomedical experimentation as their paradigm cases. This is because of differences in the practices of ethnographic and biomedical research which we discuss. These include the extended periods of time ethnographers spend in the research setting, the emergent nature of ethnographic research focus and design, the nature and positioning of risk in ethnographic research, the power relationships between researchers and participants, and the public and semi-public nature of the settings normally studied. Anticipatory regulatory regimes are inimical to ethnographic research and risk undermining the contribution of systematic inquiry to understanding whether institutions do what they claim to do, fairly and civilly and with an appropriate mobilisation of resources. We do not suggest that we should simply ignore ethics or leave matters to the individual consciences of researchers. Rather, we need to develop and strengthen professional models of regulation which emphasise education, training and mutual accountability. We conclude the paper with a number of suggestions about how such professional models might be implemented.     

It's not just what you say,it's also how you say it: Opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodology for determining effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Poor recruitment to RCTs can threaten external validity and waste resources. An inherent tension exists between safeguarding informed decision-making by participants and maximising numbers enrolled. This study investigated what occurs during informed consent appointments in an ongoing multi-centre RCT in the UK. Objectives were to investigate: 1] how study staff presented study information to participants; 2] what evidence emerged as to how well-informed participants were when proceeding to randomisation or treatment selection; and 3] what aspects of the communication process may facilitate improvements in providing evidence of informed consent. Qualitative analysis of a purposive sample of 23 recruitment appointments from three study centres and involving several recruitment staff applied techniques of thematic, content and conversation analysis (CA). Thematic analysis and CA revealed variation in appointment content and structure. Appointments were mostly recruiter-led or participant-led, and this structure was associated with what evidence emerged as to how participants understood information provided and whether they were in equipoise. Participant-led appointments provided this evidence more consistently. Detailed CA identified communication techniques which, when employed by recruiters, provided evidence as to how participants understood the choices before them. Strategic use of open questions, pauses and ceding the floor in the interaction facilitated detailed and systematic exploration of each participant's concerns and position regarding equipoise. We conclude that the current focus on content to be provided to achieve informed consent should be broadened to encompass consideration of how information is best conveyed to potential participants. A model of tailored information provision using the communication techniques identified and centred on eliciting and addressing participants' concerns is proposed. Use of these techniques is necessary to make potential participants' understanding of key issues and their position regarding equipoise explicit in order to facilitate truly informed consent.     

Informed consent in China: quality of information provided to participants in a research project

AIMS: A study was carried out of informed consent strategies in an epidemiological project approved by the regional research ethics committees in Sweden and China and conducted in three areas south-west of Shanghai. METHODS: All participants in the epidemiological project (EP) were included in the research ethical study (RES), which was conducted as a questionnaire-based interview survey in the three areas. Answers were collected by five field interviewers. RESULTS: All participants included answered the questionnaire. Almost all perceived the information provided as rather good or quite good. However, a majority (on average 76%) had the impression that the EP was part of routine healthcare measures, and not a research project. Almost all participants felt free to abstain from participation although 38% in area II stated that they had not been informed about freedom to abstain from participation. A large proportion of participants did not fully understand the nature of the EP. However, almost all participants stated that they would agree to participate in a similar study in the future. CONCLUSION: Although informed consent procedures are supposed to be internationally applicable our study illustrates that it is not always easy to convey information and obtain consent in the present study setting.     

Meaningful informed consent with young children: looking forward through an interactive narrative approach

Ideas about ethical research with young children are evolving at a rapid rate. Not only can young children participate in the informed consent process, but researchers now also recognize that the process must be meaningful for them. As part of a larger study, this article reviews children's rights and informed consent literature as the foundation for the development of a new conceptual model of meaningful early childhood informed consent. Based on this model, an ‘interactive narrative’ approach is presented as a means to inform three- to eight-year-old children about what their participation might involve and to assist them to understand and respond as research participants. For use with small groups, this approach revolves around a storybook based on research-related factual images delivered via interactive (re)telling. This narrative approach to informed consent is unique in its holistic design which seeks to address the specific needs of young children in research.     

The Prompted Optional Randomization Trial: A New Design for Comparative Effectiveness Research

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for medical evidence because randomization provides the best-known protection against confounding of results.Randomization has practical and ethical problems that limit the number of trials that can be conducted, however. A different method for collecting clinical data retains the statistically useful properties of randomization without incurring its practical and ethical challenges.A computerized prompt introduces a random element into clinical decision-making that can be instantly overridden if it conflicts with optimal patient care. This creates a weak form of randomization that still eliminates the effect of all confounders, can be carried out without disturbing routine clinical care, and arguably will not require research-grade informed consent.Clinicians who care for patients with common chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia often must choose among multiple drugs with similar indications. For example, although solid clinical trial data establish that a diabetic who is inadequately treated by metformin will have better glycemic control with the addition of either a sulfonylurea or a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, data on which combination is more effective are lacking.1 Without randomized controlled trials that make the direct comparison, clinicians have to rely on anecdote, expert opinion, and observational cohort studies to choose between these two drug classes. Because these choices differ significantly in their potential cost and may lead to different clinical outcomes, policymakers and researchers increasingly call for comparative effectiveness research designed to inform this kind of decision.2Anecdote and expert opinion rank at the bottom of the hierarchy of evidence.3 Cohort studies rank higher, and they are easy to conduct because they simply observe the outcomes associated with exposure to a treatment and do not intrude into clinical decision-making. But this simplicity comes with the cost of increased vulnerability to bias and confounding, particularly confounding by indication.4,5 Confounding by indication occurs when exposure to treatment is associated with both measured and unmeasured qualities of the patient, such as the underlying severity of disease. If patients with more severe disease tend to receive a particular treatment, that treatment may falsely appear to cause worse outcomes. Development of better databases and methodologies, such as propensity scores and instrumental variables, has attempted to address this problem, but the randomized controlled trial remains by far the most trusted technique for eliminating confounding and bias.3,4Randomized controlled trials are not available to answer many clinical questions because of the effort and expense involved and the ethical problems created by randomization. Randomization intrudes directly into a clinician’s prescribing decisions. It means exchanging a personalized treatment decision for one made by chance. Under most circumstances, patients should give informed consent for research before being randomized. Even with informed consent, ethicists debate when random assignment can be ethical. One influential standard, clinical equipoise, holds that randomization can be ethical as long as no consensus exists in the clinical community that one treatment is better than the other. This is in contrast to the more stringent standard, personal equipoise, which calls for each individual investigator to have no treatment preference at all.6These practical and ethical concerns may make some useful randomized controlled trials infeasible. Suppose clinicians want to know whether drug A or drug B is a more effective treatment for diabetes. In a network of outpatient clinics, the choice between A and B might be made hundreds of times a year, enough to support a well-powered clinical trial. However, approaching hundreds of patients to determine eligibility, recruit them, and obtain informed consent would be expensive and disruptive to clinical care. Furthermore, physicians might decline to participate because they want to make an individualized choice for many of their patients.If the question is sufficiently important clinically or the financial stakes are high enough, these barriers will be overcome. However, for many questions of modest but real importance, the need to obtain informed consent and ensure equipoise may be enough to prevent anybody from conducting a randomized controlled trial. This fact has preoccupied clinical researchers for many years.7 The current sense that comparative effectiveness research is a crucial tool for policymakers to contain health care costs and clinicians to make evidence-based decisions only makes the issue more acute.2 Ethical standards cannot be compromised, but any way to make high-quality clinical research easier while still fully protecting patients would be valuable.     

Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people

Ethical issues arise in all research settings. However, qualitative research with young people raises specific dilemmas that warrant special attention. In this paper we describe an ethical dilemma that arose during a qualitative project we carried out exploring self-management of chronic illness in adolescents. A participant disclosed details of poor adherence with medication, which had significant health implications. Prior to this disclosure he had been assured of confidentiality and thus we found ourselves unsure of how to proceed. Here, we analyse the case in detail, highlighting the ethically important moments, the options for action and the implications of these. We do this with the aim of facilitating ethical mindfulness and thus, ultimately, ethical research practice. As a backdrop to this case we consider the broader ethical context. We find that qualitative research is susceptible to ethical dilemmas because: (1) it is not always possible to predict all possible questions and responses; (2) the nature of the relationship between researchers and participants is amenable to sensitive disclosures; (3) the process of qualitative research can make it difficult for participants to voice concerns or withdraw; and (4) participants' identities are generally known to researchers, complicating boundary issues. Research with young people is susceptible to ethical dilemmas because: (1) young people have limited life experience; (2) consent is often required from both young people and parents; (3) issues of competence can complicate assumptions about informed consent; and (4) the power differential between researchers and participants is significant. When combining qualitative research methods and young participants, the scope for ethical risk is thus substantial.     

Therapeutic Misconception: Hope,Trust and Misconception in Paediatric Research

Although the therapeutic misconception (TM) has been well described over a period of approximately 20 years, there has been disagreement about its implications for informed consent to research. In this paper we review some of the history and debate over the ethical implications of TM but also bring a new perspective to those debates. Drawing upon our experience of working in the context of translational research for rare childhood diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, we consider the ethical and legal implications of the TM for parental consent to research. In this situation, it is potentially the parent who is vulnerable to TM. In our analysis we not only consider the context of informed consent for research but also the wider environment in which the value of research is promoted, more broadly through the media but also more specifically through the communication strategies of patient organizations. All dissemination about developments in research for health runs the risk of portraying an overly optimistic view of the promise of biotechnological solutions and has the potential to encourage a ‘collective’ TM. In this paper we consider the challenge that TM presents to parents as well as explore the ethical and legal responsibilities of researchers to ensure an appropriately informed consent: compatible with a hopeful disposition of parents who consent for the their children whilst avoiding a blind and misleading optimism.     

Integrating public health programs and research after the malaria vaccine implementation program (MVIP): Recommendations for next steps

BackgroundIn February 2020, international controversy arose about the ethical acceptability of the WHO Malaria Vaccine Implementation Program (MVIP). Whereas some have argued that this program must be seen as research that is not in line with international ethical standards, notably regarding informed consent and local ethical review, some WHO representatives consider the MVIP as a public health implementation program that need not adhere to these standards.MethodsWe performed a case analysis in light of the 2016 CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research involving Humans.FindingsWe argue that the MVIP has a substantial research component, and that it is prudent to therefore apply ethical norms for research involving humans, such as the CIOMS guidelines. Accordingly, we agree that the ethical requirements of informed consent and independent ethical review have not been met. In addition, we are concerned that the study might not meet CIOMS’s social value requirement.RecommendationsWe urge WHO to release more details about the process that led to the MVIP program and make the MVIP protocol publicly available. The full protocol should be assessed by the relevant ethics committees, new and already enrolled parents should be informed about the uncertainties under investigation and given a real opportunity to consent or refuse (continued) participation, communities should be engaged, and aspects of MVIP that require alteration in light of ethical review should be altered, if possible. Furthermore, in order to improve good ethical practices, it is necessary to engage in international debate regarding the integration of research and public health programs. Procedurally, vaccine implementation programs that combine both prevention and research should involve the wider international ethics community and ensure participation of the target populations in setting the proper conditions for launching such programs.     

The association between urinary kidney injury molecule 1 and urinary cadmium in elderly during long-term, low-dose cadmium exposure: a pilot study

In recent years there has been a major change on the part of funders, particularly in North America, so that data sharing is now considered to be the norm rather than the exception. We believe that data sharing is a good idea. However, we also believe that it is inappropriate to prescribe exactly when or how researchers should preserve and share data, since these issues are highly specific to each study, the nature of the data collected, who is requesting it, and what they intend to do with it. The level of ethical concern will vary according to the nature of the information, and the way in which it is collected - analyses of anonymised hospital admission records may carry a quite different ethical burden than analyses of potentially identifiable health information collected directly from the study participants. It is striking that most discussions about data sharing focus almost exclusively on issues of ownership (by the researchers or the funders) and efficiency (on the part of the funders). There is usually little discussion of the ethical issues involved in data sharing, and its implications for the study participants. Obtaining prior informed consent from the participants does not solve this problem, unless the informed consent process makes it completely clear what is being proposed, in which case most study participants would not agree. Thus, the undoubted benefits of data sharing does not remove the obligations and responsibilities that the original investigators hold for the people they invited to participate in the study.     

Simulated Patient Studies: An Ethical Analysis

Context: In connection with health care reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a “mystery shopper,” or simulated patient study, to measure access to primary care. But the study was shelved because of public controversy over “government spying” on doctors. Opponents of the study also raised ethical concerns about the use of deception with human subjects without soliciting their informed consent. Methods: We undertook an ethical analysis of the use of simulated patient techniques in health services research, with a particular focus on research measuring access to care. Using a case study, we explored relevant methodological considerations and ethical principles relating to deceptive research without informed consent, as well as U.S. federal regulations permitting exceptions to consent. Findings: Several relevant considerations both favor and oppose soliciting consent for simulated patient studies. Making research participation conditional on informed consent protects the autonomy of research subjects and shields them from unreasonable exposure to research risks. However, scientific validity is also an important ethical principle of human subjects research, as the net risks to subjects must be justified by the value to society of the knowledge to be gained. The use of simulated patients to monitor access is a naturalistic and scientifically sound experimental design that can answer important policy‐relevant questions, with minimal risks to human subjects. As interaction between researchers and subjects increases, however, so does the need for consent. Conclusions: As long as adequate protections of confidentiality of research data are in place, minimally intrusive simulated patient research that gathers policy‐relevant data on the health system without the consent of individuals working in that system can be ethically justified when the risks and burdens to research subjects are minimal and the research has the potential to generate socially valuable knowledge.     

Review of ethical aspects in biomedical research. The experience of the Ethics Committee of the Center for Toxic Oil Syndrome and Rare Diseases [CISATER]

This Field Note aims to make known the decisions taken by the Ethics Committee of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III for Toxic Oil Syndrome regarding the secondary use of research specimens in biological research when informed consent is lacking. This is a common concern in the field of biomedical research. After debating the ethical suitability of the secondary use of these samples, our main conclusion is that researchers conducting prospective studies should expressly solicit written informed consent from participants in the study about i) whether there will or could be any secondary use of the samples and, if so, ii) whether such secondary use would be conditional on the type of research.     

Ethical issues surrounding studies with vulnerable populations: a case study of South African street children

Researchers who investigate social and economic determinants of health often interact with vulnerable and marginalized populations. Great care must be taken to conduct research studies involving vulnerable persons in a manner consistent with accepted ethical principles in order to protect participants from exploitation, to build capacity, and to promote wellbeing. Children form a particularly vulnerable group, especially those who do not enjoy the protection of parents or guardians. METHODS: A research project which studied South African Sunnyside's street children was used as a case study to illustrate ethical issues surrounding research with vulnerable populations. DISCUSSION: The participants in the case study lacked the age of majority and were without any legal guardian. The researchers experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining ethical approval to conduct the study. The street children, at first, were not allowed to give informed consent for the study because of their minor age. Ethical principles of autonomy, disclosure, competence and understanding, consent and voluntariness, beneficence and non-maleficence, and justice are described and applied to this case study involving street children in a South African neighbourhood. It is suggested that by working within an ethical framework, the safety of research participants will be assured and the quality of the research will be enhanced.     

Ethics in international health research: a perspective from the developing world

Health research plays a pivotal role in addressing inequities in health and human development, but to achieve these objectives the research must be based on sound scientific and ethical principles. Although it is accepted that ethics play a central role in health research in developing countries, much of the recent debate has focused on controversies surrounding internationally sponsored research and has taken place largely without adequate participation of the developing countries. The relationship between ethical guidelines and regulations, and indigenously sponsored and public health research has not been adequately explored. For example, while the fundamental principles of ethical health research, such as community participation, informed consent, and shared benefits and burdens, remain sacrosanct other issues, such as standards of care and prior agreements, merit greater public debate within developing countries. In particular, the relationship of existing ethical guidelines to epidemiological and public health research merits further exploration. In order to support health research in developing countries that is both relevant and meaningful, the focus must be on developing health research that promotes equity and on developing local capacity in bioethics. Only through such proactive measures can we address the emerging ethical dilemmas and challenges that globalization and the genomics revolution will bring in their wake.     

Informed consent and the history of inclusion of women in clinical research

The purposes of this paper are to (a) discuss the troubled history of informed consent for research on women and its ramifications for women's participation in clinical trials; (b) interrogate current informed consent practices as to their accountability and justice in the treatment of women; and (c) recommend to nurse researchers and clinical nurses ways of improving the practice of informed consent in research with women.