Misunderstanding in clinical research: Distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, & therapeutic optimism

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 11-16

  Horng, Sam ^a   Grady, Christine ^b  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COLON TUMOR; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INFORMED CONSENT; METHODOLOGY; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROBABILITY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ADULT; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I; COLONIC NEOPLASMS; COMPREHENSION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RESEARCHER-SUBJECT RELATIONS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0041706886     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/3564408     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Faden, RR and Beauchamp, TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986: 235-273.
2. Emanuel, EJ, Wendler, D, and Grady, C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701-2711.
3. Daugherty C, Ratain MJ, Grochowski E, et al. Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1995; 13(5): 1062-72.
4. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, et al. Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001; 358: 1772-77.
5. Daugherty CK, Danik DM, Janish L, et al. Quantitative analysis of ethical issues in phase I trials: A survey interview study of 144 advanced cancer patients. IRB 2000; 22(3): 6-13.
6. Yoder LH, O'Rourke TJ, Etnyre A, et al. Expectations and experiences of patients with cancer participating in phase I clinical trials. Onc Nurse Forum 1997; 24(5): 891-96.
7. Itoh K, Sasaki Y, Miyata Y, et al. Therapeutic response in phase I clinical trials of anticancer agents conducted in Japan. Cancer Chemotherapy & Pharmacology 1994; 34: 451-44.
8. Von Hoff D, Turner J. Response rates, duration of response, and dose response effects in phase I studies of antineoplastics. Investigational New Drugs 1991; 9: 115-22.
9. Miller M. Phase I cancer trials: A collusion of misunderstanding. Hastings Center Report 2000; 30(4): 34-42.
10. Kodish E, Stocking C, Ratain MJ, Kohrman A, Siegler M. Ethical issues in phase I oncology research: A comparison of investigators and institutional review board chairpersons. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1992; 10(11): 1810-16.
11. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report 1987; 12(2): 20-24.
12. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
13. See ref. 1, Faden & Beauchamp 1986.
14. See ref. 11, Appelbaum et al. 1987.
15. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.
16. See ref. 11, Appelbaum et al. 1987.
17. Berg and colleagues have distinguished between concepts of understanding, the "ability to acquire information," and appreciation, the "ability to evaluate information," or apply it to oneself. We are incorporating this notion of appreciation into our account of understanding. Berg J., Appelbaum, PS, Lidz CW, Parker LS. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001: 102
18. Freedman argues that a subject's 'ignorant consent' because of a refusal to receive information may be similarly tolerated in cases when that information is not "serious" to the decision to participate in research. Freedman B. The validity of ignorant consent to medical research. IRB 1982. 4(2): 1-5
19. See: ref. 3, Daugherty et al. 1995; ref. 4, Joffe et al. 2001; ref. 5, Daugherty et al. 2000; ref. 6, Yoder et al. 1997; ref. 7, Itoh et al. 1994; ref. 8, Von Hoff & Turner 1991.
20. A therapeutic misestimation could conceivably exist in the clinical care setting as well, although we focus here on the therapeutic misestimation in research.
21. It is also possible for potential subjects to underestimate the chance of benefit or overestimate risk. In these cases, 'misestimation' may contribute to a decision not to participate in research. This situation may occur in individuals or populations that are suspicious of research. In this paper, we only discuss the decision of subjects to participate in research
22. Macklin R. Understanding informed consent. Acta Oncologica 1999; 38: 83-87.
23. King NMP. Defining and describing benefit appropriately in clinical trials. Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 2000; 28: 332-43.
24. Redeimeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients' decisions: cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 1993; 270: 72-76.
25. Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Communicating statistical information. Science 2000; 290: 2261-62.
26. Edwards A, Elwyn G, and Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. British Medical Journal 2002; 324: 827-30.
27. Walker, VR. Direct inference, probability, and a conceptual gulf in risk communication. Risk Analysis 1995; 15: 603-609.
28. See ref. 27, Walker 1995.
29. Hickey SS. Enabling hope. Cancer Nursing 1986; 9: 133-37.
30. Miller FG, Rosenstein DL, DeRenzo EG. Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA 1998; 280: 1449-54.