A review of current ethical concerns and challenges in substance use disorder research

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 186-190

  Striley, Catherine W ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; participant protection; research ethics; substance use

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG DEPENDENCE; ETHICAL DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; REVIEW; SUBSTANCE ABUSE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 79955121375     PISSN: 09517367     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e328345926a     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Goozner M, Caplan A, Moreno J, et al. A common standard for conflict of interest disclosure in addiction journals. Addiction 2009; 104:1779-1784.
2. Responsibility of applicants for promoting objectivity in research for which PHS funding is sought (42C.F.R. Part 50. Subpart F). http://grants.nih. gov/grants/compliance/42-CFR-50-Subpart-F.htm. [Accessed 3 December 2010]
3. Adams PJ, Buetow S, Rossen F. Vested interests in addiction research and policy: poisonous partnerships. Addiction 2010; 105:585-590.
4. Babor TF. Raising the standard: a response to the commentators. Addiction 2009; 104:1789-1791.
5. Bakke Ø, Endal D. Vested interests in addiction research and policy alcohol policies out of context: drinks industry supplanting government role in alcohol policies in sub-Saharan Africa. Addiction 2010; 105:22-28.
6. Thurstone C, Salomensen-Sautel S, Riggs PD. How adolescents with sub-stance use disorder spend research payments. Drug Alcohol Depend 2010; 111:262-264.
7. Petry NM, Kolodner KB, Li R, et al. Prize-based contingency management does not increase gambling. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 83:269-273.
8. Festinger DS, Marlow DB, Croft JR, et al. Monetary incentives improve recall of research consent information: it pays to remember. Exp Clin Psychophar- macol 2009; 17:99-104.
9. Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Croft JR, et al. Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation? Drug Alcohol Depend 2005; 78:275-281. (Pubitemid 40694049)
10. Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Dugosh KL, et al. Higher magnitude case payments improve research follow-up rates without increasing drug use or perceived coercion. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008; 96:128-135.
11. Barratt MJ, Norman JS, Fry CL Positive and negative aspects of participation in illicit drug research: implications for recruitment and ethical conduct. Int J Drug Policy 2007; 18:235-238. (Pubitemid 46891790)
12. Striley CW, Callahan C, Cottler LB. Enrolling, retaining, and benefiting out-of-treatment drug users. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2008; 3:19-25.
13. Fry CL. Ethical implications of peer-driven recruitment: guidelines from public health research. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:16-17.
14. Phillips T. Protecting the subject: PDR and the potential for compromised consent. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:14-15.
15. Landy DC, Sharp R. Examining the potential for exploitation by local intermediaries. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:12-13.
16. Bean S, Diego SS. Betwixt & between: peer recruiter proximity in community-based research. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:18-19.
17. Anderson EE. The role of community-based organizations in the recruitment of human subjects: ethical considerations. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:20-21.
18. Molyneux S, Kamuya D, Marsh V. Community members employed on research projects face crucial, often under-recognized, ethical dilemmas. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:24-26.
19. Simon C, Mosavel M. Community members as recruiters of human subjects: ethical considerations. Am J Bioeth 2010; 10:3-11.
20. Semaan S, Santibanez S, Garfein RG, et al. Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling. Int J Drug Policy 2009; 20:14-27.
21. The National Commission forthe Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Office of the Secretary. The Belmont Report Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979. p. 7.
22. Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:816-823.
23. Zimela J. Prescription drug abuse on the increase. Inter Press Service; 5 March 2010.
24. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Adam P, et al. Estimating the level of HIV prevention coverage, knowledge and protective behavior among injecting drug users: what does the 2008 UNGASS reporting round tell us? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 52:S132-S142.
25. McLellan AT. Public accountability in addiction treatment. Lancet 2009; 374:1220-1221.
26. Ahmed SM, Palermo AS. Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review. Am J Public Health 2010; 100:1380-1387; 1385.
27. Venkatapuram S. Global justice and the social determinants of health. Ethics Int Aff 2010; 2:119-130; quote 123.
28. Jegede S. African ethics, healthcare research and community and individual participation. J Asian Afr Stud 2009; 44:239-253.
29. Harrowing JN, Mill J, Spiers J, et al. Culture, context and community: ethical considerations for global nursing research. Int Nurs Rev 2010; 57:70-77.
30. Bell K, Salmon A. Pain, physical dependence and pseudoaddiction: redefining addiction for 'nice' people? Int J Drug Policy 2009; 20:170-178.
31. Fisher CB. Addiction research ethics and the Belmont principles: do drug users have a different moral voice? Subst Use Misuse 2010. [Epub ahead of print]
32. Fisher CB, Oransky M, Mahadevan M, et al. Do drug abuse researchers have a duty to protect third parties from HIV transmission? Moral perspectives of street drug users. In: Buchanan D, Fisher CB, Gable L, editors. Research with high risk populations: balancing science, ethics and law. Washington DC: APA Books; 2009. pp.189-206.