Restoring balance: A consensus statement on the protection of vulnerable research participants

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 102, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 2220-2225

  Du Bois, James M ^a   Beskow, Laura ^b   Campbell, Jean ^c   Dugosh, Karen ^d   Festinger, David ^d   Hartz, Sarah ^e   James, Rosalina ^f   Lidz, Charles ^g  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MISSOURI INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH   (United States)

^d TREATMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; ETHICS; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 84869168986     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300757     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Kipnis K. Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, ed. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Vol. 2: Commissioned Papers and Staff Analysis. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 2001:G1-G13.
2. Levine RJ. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1988.
3. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC; 1979.
4. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Vol. 1: Report and Recommendations. Bethesda, MD; 2001.
5. Du Bois JM. Ethics in Mental Health Research: Principles, Guidance, and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
6. Jones JH. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. 2nd rev ed. New York: Free Press; 1993.
7. Reverby S, ed. Tuskegee's Truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 2000.
8. Office of Human Research Protections. Protection of Human Subjects. Washington, DC; 2009.
9. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decision-Making Capacity. Rockville, MD; 1998.
10. Appelbaum PS. Competence to consent to research: a critique of the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee. Account Res. 1999;7(2-4):265-276.
11. Grady C. Money for research participation? Does it jeopardize informed consent? Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(2):40-44.
12. Ritter A, Fry C, Swan A. The ethics of reimbursing injection drug users for public health research interviews: what price are we prepared to pay? Int J Drug Policy. 2003;14(1):1-3.
13. Du Bois JM, Callahan O'Leary C, Cottler LB. The attitudes of females in drug court toward additional safeguards in HIV prevention research. Prev Sci. 2009;10(4):345-352.
14. Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Croft JR, et al. Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2005;78(3):275-281.
15. Dunn LB. Capacity to consent to research in schizophrenia: the expanding evidence base. Behav Sci Law. 2006;24(4):431-445.
16. Roberts LW, Roberts B. Psychiatric research ethics: an overview of evolving guidelines and current ethical dilemmas in the study of mental illness. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;46(8):1025-1038.
17. Jeste DV, Depp CA, Palmer BW. Magnitude of impairment in decisional capacity in people with schizophrenia compared to normal subjects: an overview. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(1):121-128.
18. Luebbert R, Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Deshields TL. IRB member judgments of decisional capacity, coercion, and risk in medical and psychiatric studies. J EmpirRes Hum Res Ethics. 2008;3(1):15-24.
19. King PA. Justice beyond Belmont. In: Childress JF, Meslin EM, Shapiro HT, eds. Belmont Revisited. Ethical Principles for Research With Human Subjects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2005:136-147.
20. Kahn JP, Mastroianni AC, Sugarman J, eds. Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
21. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(8):721-726.
22. Iltis AS. Timing invitations to participate in clinical research: preliminary versus informed consent. J Med Philos. 2005;30(1):89-106.
23. Young DR, Hooker DT, Freeberg FE. Informed consent documents: increasing comprehension by reducing reading level. IRB. 1990;12(3):1-5.
24. Hochhauser M. "Therapeutic misconception" and "recruiting doublespeak" in the informed consent process. IRB. 2002;24(1):11-12.
25. Roberts LW. Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159(5):705-712.
26. Appelbaum PS. Editorial: Missing the boat: competence and consent in psychiatric research. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155(11):1486-1488.
27. Campbell J. 'We are the evidence', an examination of service user research involvement as voice. In: Wallcraft J, Schrank B, Amering M, eds. Handbook of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Research. New York: Wiley; 2009:113-137.
28. Gunsalus CK. The nanny state meets the inner lawyer: overregulating while underprotecting human participants in research. Ethics Behav. 2004;14(4):369-382.
29. Jeste DV, Palmer BW, Appelbaum PS, et al. A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(8):966-974.
30. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Researcher's certification of consent and authorization; 2010. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/ informedconsent/icform4.htm. Accessed June 23, 2011.
31. Festinger DS, Marlowe DB, Dugosh KL, Croft JR, Arabia PL. Higher magnitude cash payments improve research follow-up rates without increasing drug use or perceived coercion. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;96(1-2):128-135.
32. Del Vecchio P, Blyler CR. Identifying critical outcomes and setting priorities for mental health services research. In: Wallcraft J, Schrank B, Amering M, eds. Handbook of Service User Involvement in Mental Health Research. New York: Wiley; 2009:92-111.
33. Fisher CB. Relational ethics and research with vulnerable populations. In: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, ed. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decision-Making Capacity. Commissioned Papers. Rockvillle, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Committee; 1999:29-49.
34. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202.
35. Du Bois JM, Bailey-Burch B, Bustillos D, et al. Ethical issues in mental health research: the case for community engagement. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2011;24(3):208-214.