ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2019
When Is It Ethical for Physician-Investigators to Seek Consent From Their Own Patients?
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct challenges faced by surgeons in conducting and publishing surgical research: implications for training, ethics, and academic surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Review
- Building capacity in translational research ethics among early-stage investigators: A pilot course on the ethics of the clinician-researcher dual-role.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Oncologists' knowledge, practices and ethical opinions about therapeutic misconception: a French national survey.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Piloting the better research interactions for every family (BRIEF) researcher intervention to support recruitment for a neonatal clinical trial: parent experience and infant enrollment.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Towards better enrollment decision-making for perinatal clinical research: Reconsidering recruitment and consent processes to support family values and preferences.Seminars in perinatology · 2025Review
- Article
- Experiences and preferences for learning about neonatal research: insights from parent interviews.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Stakeholders' experiences of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials in a limited resource setting: a qualitative analysis.Research ethics · 2024Article
- Navigating the challenges of clinical trial professionals in the healthcare sector.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Physician-Investigator, Research Coordinator, and Patient Perspectives on Dual-Role Consent in Oncology: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Article
- Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Article
- Motivations and concerns of patients considering participation in an implementation study of a hereditary cancer risk assessment program in diverse primary care settings.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Article
- Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Public Attitudes toward Consent When Research Is Integrated into Care-Any "Ought" from All the "Is"?The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
- A Qualitative Analysis of Ethical Perspectives on Recruitment and Consent for Human Intracranial Electrophysiology Studies.AJOB neuroscience · 2021Article
- Beyond Duty: Medical "Heroes" and the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- The Attitudes of Relatives of ICU Patients toward Informed Consent for Clinical Research.Critical care research and practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classic statements of research ethics advise against permitting physician-investigators to obtain consent for research participation from patients with whom they have preexisting treatment relationships. Reluctance about "dual-role" consent reflects the view that distinct normative commitments govern physician-patient and investigator-participant relationships, and that blurring the research-care boundary could lead to ethical transgressions. However, several features of contemporary research demand reconsideration of the ethics of dual-role consent. Here, we examine three arguments advanced against dual-role consent: that it creates role conflict for the physician-investigator; that it can compromise the voluntariness of the patient-participant's consent; and that it promotes therapeutic misconceptions. Although these concerns have merit in some circumstances, they are not dispositive in all cases. Rather, their force-and the ethical acceptability of dual-role consent-varies with features of the particular study. As research participation more closely approximates usual care, it becomes increasingly acceptable, or even preferable, for physicians to seek consent for research from their own patients. It is time for a more nuanced approach to dual-role consent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30994425What 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.