Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24931849›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2014

Giving voice to study volunteers: comparing views of mentally ill, physically ill, and healthy protocol participants on ethical aspects of clinical research.

Laura Weiss Roberts, Jane Paik Kim

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Attitudes of Mothers Regarding Willingness to Enroll Their Children in Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laura Weiss RobertsDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: RobertsL@stanford.edu.
Jane Paik KimDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA.
Stanford University · US

Funding

UNM HSC Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001449 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI CAMPEN, MATTHEW J, PANDHI, NANCY · 2015 to 2024
$36.9M
ZUNI KIDNEY PROJECT STUDY I--POPULATION BASED SURVEY OF RENAL DISEASEM01RR000997 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROLDAN, CARLOS A · 1985 to 2010
$30.0M
VULNERABILITY AND INFORMED CONSENT IN CLINICAL RESEARCHR01MH058102 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROBERTS, LAURA W · 1997 to 1999
–
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001449NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR000997NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH058102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationEthical controversy surrounds clinical research involving seriously ill participants. While many stakeholders have opinions, the extent to which protocol volunteers themselves see human research as ethically acceptable has not been documented. To address this gap of knowledge, authors sought to assess views of healthy and ill clinical research volunteers regarding the ethical acceptability of human studies involving individuals who are ill or are potentially vulnerable.

methodsSurveys and semi-structured interviews were used to query clinical research protocol participants and a comparison group of healthy individuals. A total of 179 respondents participated in this study: 150 in protocols (60 mentally ill, 43 physically ill, and 47 healthy clinical research protocol participants) and 29 healthy individuals not enrolled in protocols. Main outcome measures included responses regarding ethical acceptability of clinical research when it presents significant burdens and risks, involves people with serious mental and physical illness, or enrolls people with other potential vulnerabilities in the research situation.

resultsRespondents expressed decreasing levels of acceptance of participation in research that posed burdens of increasing severity. Participation in protocols with possibly life-threatening consequences was perceived as least acceptable (mean = 1.82, sd = 1.29). Research on serious illnesses, including HIV, cancer, schizophrenia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, was seen as ethically acceptable across respondent groups (range of means = [4.0, 4.7]). Mentally ill volunteers expressed levels of ethical acceptability for physical illness research and mental illness research as acceptable and similar, while physically ill volunteers expressed greater ethical acceptability for physical illness research than for mental illness research. Mentally ill, physically ill, and healthy participants expressed neutral to favorable perspectives regarding the ethical acceptability of clinical research participation by potentially vulnerable subpopulations (difference in acceptability perceived by mentally ill - healthy = -0.04, CI [-0.46, 0.39]; physically ill - healthy = -0.13, CI [-0.62, -.36]).

conclusionsClinical research volunteers and healthy clinical research-"naïve" individuals view studies involving ill people as ethically acceptable, and their responses reflect concern regarding research that poses considerable burdens and risks and research involving vulnerable subpopulations. Physically ill research volunteers may be more willing to see burdensome and risky research as acceptable. Mentally ill research volunteers and healthy individuals expressed similar perspectives in this study, helping to dispel a misconception that those with mental illness should be presumed to hold disparate views.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBiomedical ResearchFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersons with Psychiatric DisordersVolunteersVulnerable PopulationsYoung AdultBurden of diseaseClinical research participationEthics in psychiatric researchVulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID24931849
PMCPMC4109648
OpenAlexW2117229914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.