ReviewBMC medicine2014
Strengths and weaknesses of guideline approaches to safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship.
Review in BMC medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Motivations of children and their parents to participate in drug research: a systematic review.European journal of pediatrics · 2016Pooled it
- Clinicians' experiences of obtaining informed consent for research and treatment: a nested qualitative study from Pakistan.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- Physician-Investigator, Research Coordinator, and Patient Perspectives on Dual-Role Consent in Oncology: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Community engagement: health research through informing, consultation, involving and empowerment in Ingwavuma community.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Gurus and Griots: Revisiting the research informed consent process in rural African contexts.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- A CTSA One Health Alliance guidance on institutional review of veterinary clinical studies.BMC veterinary research · 2021Article
- Understanding the child-doctor relationship in research participation: a qualitative study.BMC pediatrics · 2020Article
- Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list.BMJ paediatrics open · 2020Review
- Pioneering Informed Consent for Return of Research Results to Breast Cancer Patients Facing Barriers to Implementation of Genomic Medicine: The Kenyan BRCA1/2 Testing Experience Using Whole Exome Sequencing.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Ethical considerations of researchers conducting pediatric clinical drug trials: a qualitative survey in two Belgian university children's hospitals.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Article
- "Telling" and assent: Parents' attitudes towards children's participation in a birth cohort study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Article
- A Qualitative Study into Dependent Relationships and Voluntary Informed Consent for Research in Pediatric Oncology.Paediatric drugs · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is thought that a dependent relationship between patients and physicians who enroll their own patients in research compromises voluntary informed consent. Therefore, several ethical guidelines for human subject research provide approaches to mitigate these compromises. Currently, these approaches have not been critically evaluated. In this article, we analyze the approaches of ethical guidelines to manage the influence of a dependent relationship between patients and physicians on voluntary informed consent and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.
methodsWe performed a review of international ethical guidance documents on human subject research, listed in the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics and found through cross referencing. We also searched Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs) and the World Health Organization (WHO) website. Guidelines from all years were eligible for inclusion. The date last searched was December 2013. DISCUSSION: We identified two basic guideline approaches: 1. A process approach, which focuses on the person who obtains informed consent, that is, an independent individual, such as a research nurse or counselor; and 2. A content approach, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation. Both approaches are valuable, either because the influence of the physician may diminish or because it empowers patients to make voluntary decisions. However, the approaches also face challenges. First, research nurses are not always independent. Second, physician-investigators will be informed about decisions of their patients. Third, involvement of a counselor is sometimes unfeasible. Fourth, the right to withdraw may be difficult to act upon in a dependent relationship.
conclusionsCurrent guideline approaches to protect voluntary informed consent within a dependent relationship are suboptimal. To prevent compromises to voluntary informed consent, consent should not only be obtained by an independent individual, but this person should also emphasize the voluntary nature of participation. At the same time, dependency as such does not imply undue influence. Sometimes the physician may be best qualified to provide information, for example, for a very specialized study. Still, the research nurse should obtain informed consent. In addition, patients should be able to consult a counselor, who attends the informed consent discussions and is concerned with their interests. Finally, both physicians and research nurses should disclose research interests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.