A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices

Clinical Trials

Volumn 13, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 555-565

  Kraft, Stephanie Alessi ^a   Cho, Mildred K ^a   Constantine, Melissa ^b   Lee, Sandra Soo Jin ^a   Kelley, Maureen ^c   Korngiebel, Diane ^d   James, Cyan ^d   Kuwana, Ellen ^e   Meyer, Adrienne ^d   Porter, Kathryn ^e   Diekema, Douglas ^e   Capron, Alexander M ^f   Alicic, Radica ^g   Wilfond, Benjamin S ^e   Magnus, David ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^e SEATTLE CHILDREN S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g Providence Medical Research Center   (United States)

Author keywords

comparative effectiveness research; informed consent; pragmatic trials; research ethics; Research on medical practices

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROFESSIONAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MIDDLE AGED; ONLINE SYSTEM; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; POPULATION RESEARCH; POST HOC ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; VIDEORECORDING; WASHINGTON; WRITTEN COMMUNICATION; YOUNG ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHYSICIAN; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHYSICIANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84987741030     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774516648907     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Faden RR, Kass NE, Goodman SN, et al. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S16-S27.
2. Kass NE, Faden RR, Goodman SN, et al. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S4-S15.
3. Brody H, Miller FG., The research-clinical practice distinction, learning health systems, and relationships. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: 41-47.
4. Kim SYH, Miller FG,. Informed consent for pragmatic trials-the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 769-772.
5. Wendler D., What should be disclosed to research participants? Am J Bioeth 2013; 13: 3-8.
6. US Department of Health and Human Services. Draft guidance on disclosing reasonably foreseeable risks in research evaluating standards of care., https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-29915 (2014,. accessed 22 July 2015).
7. Lantos JD, Spertus JA., The concept of risk in comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2129-2130.
8. Magnus D, Wilfond BS., Research on medical practices and the ethics of disclosure. Pediatrics 2015; 135: 208-210.
9. Weiss EM, Joffe S., Promoting informed decision making for comparative effectiveness randomized trials. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169: 803-804.
10. Anderson ML, Griffin J, Goldkind SF, et al. The Food and Drug Administration and pragmatic clinical trials of marketed medical products. Clin Trials 2015; 12: 511-519.
11. Sugarman J, Califf RM., Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 2014; 311: 2381-2382.
12. Lee SS, Kelley M, Cho M, et al. Adrift in the gray zone: IRB perspectives on research in the learning health system. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2016; 7: 125-134.
13. Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M, et al. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 690-696.
14. Nayak RK, Wendler D, Miller FG, et al. Pragmatic randomized trials without standard informed consent? A national survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 356-364.
15. Lantos JD., US research regulations: do they reflect the views of the people they claim to protect? Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 731-732.
16. Whicher D, Kass N, Saghai Y, et al. The views of quality improvement professionals and comparative effectiveness researchers on ethics, IRBs, and oversight. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2015; 10: 132-144.
17. Kelley M, James C, Kraft SA, et al. Patient perspectives on the learning health system: the importance of trust and shared decision making. Am J Bioeth 2015; 15: 4-17.
18. Lemke AA, Halverson C, Ross LF., Biobank participation and returning research results: perspectives from a deliberative engagement in South Side Chicago. Am J Med Genet A 2012; 158: 1029-1037.
19. Halverson CME, Ross LF,. Engaging African-Americans about biobanks and the return of research results. J Community Genet 2012; 3: 275-283.
20. Research on Medical Practices Research Team. Which medication is best? (video), https://rompethics.iths.org/?page-id=97 (2014,. accessed 22 July 2015).
21. Research on Medical Practices Research Team. Approaches to ROMP (video)., https://rompethics.iths.org/?page-id=99 (2014,. accessed 22 July 2015).
22. Research on Medical Practices Research Team. Informing or asking (video)., https://rompethics.iths.org/?page-id=101 (2014,. accessed 22 July 2015).
23. Institute of Medicine. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary (IOM roundtable on evidence-based medicine). Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.
24. Institute of Medicine. Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2012.
25. Hull SC, Sharp RR, Botkin JR, et al. Patients' views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008; 8: 62-70.
26. Damschroder LJ, Pritts JL, Neblo MA, et al. Patients, privacy and trust: patients' willingness to allow researchers to access their medical records. Soc Sci Med 2007; 64: 223-235.
27. McGuire AL, Basford M, Dressler LG, et al. Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res 2011; 21: 1001-1007.
28. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, et al. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010; 13: 368-377.
29. Trinidad SB, Fullerton SM, Bares JM, et al. Genomic research and wide data sharing: views of prospective participants. Genet Med 2010; 12: 486-495.
30. Mazor KM, Sabin JE, Goff SL, et al. Cluster randomized trials to study the comparative effectiveness of therapeutics: stakeholders' concerns and recommendations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009; 18: 554-561.
31. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Joffe S, et al. Competing commitments in clinical trials. IRB 2009; 31: 1-6.
32. Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA, et al. Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 2002; 287: 78-84.
33. Kim SY, Miller FG., Waivers and alterations to consent in pragmatic clinical trials: respecting the principle of respect for persons. IRB 2016; 38: 1-5.
34. Davern M., Nonresponse rates are a problematic indicator of nonresponse bias in survey research. Health Serv Res 2013; 48: 905-912.
35. Groves RM, Peytcheva E., The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 2008; 72: 167-189.