Patients' views concerning research on medical practices: Implications for consent

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 76-91

  Weinfurt, Kevin P ^a   Bollinger, Juli M ^b   Brelsford, Kathleen M ^a   Crayton, Travis J ^a   Topazian, Rachel J ^b   Kass, Nancy E ^b   Beskow, Laura M ^a   Sugarman, Jeremy ^c  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; ethics; focus groups; policy; pragmatic clinical trials; research ethics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH SUBJECT; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY; VIDEORECORDING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; UNITED STATES; VIDEO RECORDING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84950141149     PISSN: 23294515     EISSN: 23294523     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2015.1117536     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. M.Anderson,, R.Califf, and J.Sugarman. 2015. Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems. Clinical Trials 12(3): 276–86.
2. L.R.Buchanan, 2013. Determination letter from the Office for Human Research Protections to University of Alabama at Birmingham. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR13/mar13a.pdf (accessed March11, 2015).
3. R.M.Califf,, and J.Sugarman. 2015. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clinical Trials 12(5): 436–41.
4. M.K.Cho,, D.Magnus, M.Constantine, et al. 2015. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Annals of Internal Medicine 162(10): 690–96.
5. Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. 2009. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12648/initial-national-priorities-for-comparative-effectiveness-research (accessed July7, 2015).
6. J.M.Drazen,, C.G.Solomon, and M.F.Greene. 2013. Informed consent and SUPPORT. New England Journal of Medicine 368(20): 1929–31.
7. R.Fabi,, N.Kass, K.Hallez, et al. 2015. Alternative consent models for comparative effectiveness studies: patient perspectives. Presentation at AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, June 14–16.
8. R.R.Faden,, T.L.Beauchamp, and N.E.Kass. 2014. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. New England Journal of Medicine 370(8): 766–68.
9. C.Feudtner,, R.Schreiner, and J.D.Lantos. 2013. Risks (and benefits) in comparative effectiveness research trials. New England Journal of Medicine 369(10): 892–94.
10. First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Looney v. Moore. 2013. No. 2:13-cv-00733-UNAS-KOB (N.D. Ala. filed May 20, 2013).
11. K.L.Hudson,, A.E.Guttmacher, and F.S.Collins. 2013. In support of SUPPORT—A view from the NIH. New England Journal of Medicine 368(25): 2349–51.
12. Institute of Medicine. 2014. Ethical review and oversight issues in research involving standard of care interventions: A workshop. Available at: http://iom.edu/Activities/Research/StandardofCare/2014-DEC-02.aspx (accessed March11, 2015).
13. M.Kelley,, C.James, S.A.Kraft, et al. 2015. Patient perspectives on the learning health system: The importance of trust and shared decision making. American Journal of Bioethics. 15(9): 4–17.
14. R.Macklin,, and L.Shepherd. 2013. Informed consent and standard of care: What must be disclosed. American Journal of Bioethics 13(12): 9–13.
15. R.Macklin,, L.Shepherd, A.Dreger, et al. 2013. The OHRP and SUPPORT—Another view. New England Journal of Medicine 369(2): e3.
16. D.Magnus,, and A.L.Caplan. 2013. Risk, consent, and SUPPORT. New England Journal of Medicine 368(20): 1864–65.
17. J.A.Maxwell, 2012. Real and virtual relationships in qualitative data analysis. In A realist approach for qualitative research, 109–26. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
18. R.E.McKinney,, Jr. 2013. Let the punishment fit the crime: Sensible consent in the management of human subjects research and standard-of-care interventions. American Journal of Bioethics 13(12): 22–23.
19. National Institutes of Health. 2015. Health care systems research collaboratory. Available at: http://www.nihcollaboratory.org (accessed March11, 2015).
20. Office of Human Research Protections. 2013. Matters related to protection of human subjects and research considering standard of care interventions. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/newsroom/rfc/Public%20Meeting%20August%2028,%202013/supportmeetingtranscriptfinal.html (accessed March11, 2015).
21. Office of Human Research Protection. 2014. Draft guidance on disclosing reasonably foreseeable risks in research evaluating standards of care. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/newsroom/rfc/comstdofcare.html (accessed March11, 2015).
22. J.Sugarman,, and R.M.Califf. 2014. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 311(23): 2381–82.
23. S.R.Tunis,, D.B.Stryer, and C.M.Clancy. 2003. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. Journal of the American Medical Association 290(12): 1624–32.
24. D.Wendler, 2013. What should be disclosed to research participants? American Journal of Bioethics 13(12): 3–8.
25. B.S.Wilfond, 2013. Quality improvement ethics: Lessons from the SUPPORT study. American Journal of Bioethics 13(12): 14–19.
26. B.S.Wilfond,, D.Magnus, A.H.Antommaria, et al. 2013. The OHRP and SUPPORT. New England Journal of Medicine 368(25): e36.