Emerging issues in paediatric health research consent forms in Canada: working towards best practices

BMC Medical Ethics

Bartha M Knoppers¹  Lee Black¹  Denise Avard¹  Edward S Dove¹ 

[1] Department of Human Genetics, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC, H3A 0G1, Canada

关键词: Withdrawal;    Return of results;    Research ethics;    Paediatric research;    ELSI;    Consent;    Confidentiality;    Children;   

Others  :  799989
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-14-5

 received in 2012-06-15, accepted in 2012-10-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Obtaining a research participant’s voluntary and informed consent is the bedrock of sound ethics practice. Greater inclusion of children in research has led to questions about how paediatric consent operates in practice to accord with current and emerging legal and socio-ethical issues, norms, and requirements.

Methods

Employing a qualitative thematic content analysis, we examined paediatric consent forms from major academic centres and public organisations across Canada dated from 2008–2011, which were purposively selected to reflect different types of research ethics boards, participants, and studies. The studies included biobanking, longitudinal studies, and gene-environment studies. Our purpose was to explore the following six emerging issues: (1) whether the scope of parental consent allows for a child’s assent, dissent, or future consent; (2) whether the concepts of risk and benefit incorporate the child’s psychological and social perspective; (3) whether a child’s ability to withdraw is respected and to what extent withdrawal is permitted; (4) whether the return of research results includes individual results and/or incidental findings and the processes involved therein; (5) whether privacy and confidentiality concerns adequately address the child’s perspective and whether standard data and/or sample identifiability nomenclature is used; and (6) whether retention of and access to paediatric biological samples and associated medical data are addressed.

Results

The review suggests gaps and variability in the consent forms with respect to addressing each of the six issues. Many forms did not discuss the possibility of returning research results, be they individual or general/aggregate results. Forms were also divided in terms of the scope of parental consent (specific versus broad), and none discussed a process for resolving disputes that can arise when either the parents or the child wishes to withdraw from the study.

Conclusions

The analysis provides valuable insight and evidence into how consent forms address current ethical issues. While we do not thoroughly explore the contexts and reasons behind consent form gaps and variability, we do advocate and formulate the development of best practices for drafting paediatric health research consent forms. This can greatly ameliorate current gaps and facilitate harmonised and yet contextualised approaches to paediatric health research ethics.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Dove et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Matheson LA, Huber AM, Warner A, Rosenberg AM: Towards harmonization of pediatric research ethics review protocols among Canadian institutions: a Canadian pediatric rheumatology experience. Paediatr Child Health 2012, 17:313-316.
• [2]Palmour N, Affleck W, Bell E, Deslauriers C, Pike B, Doyon J, Racine E: Informed consent for MRI and fMRI research: analysis of a sample of Canadian consent documents. BMC Med Ethics 2011, 12:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Allen C, Foulkes WD: Qualitative thematic analysis of consent forms used in cancer genome sequencing. BMC Med Ethics 2011, 12:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Al-Riyami A, Jaju D, Jaju S, Silverman HJ: The adequacy of informed consent forms in genetic research in Oman: a pilot study. Dev World Bioeth 2011, 11:57-62.
• [5]Padhy BM, Gupta P, Gupta YK: Analysis of the compliance of informed consent documents with good clinical practice guideline. Contemp Clin Trials 2011, 32:662-666.
• [6]McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G: Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003, 290:360-366.
• [7]Stair TO, Reed CR, Radeos MS, Koski G, Camargo CA, MARC Investigators: Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2001, 8:636-641.
• [8]Silverman HJ, Hull SC, Sugarman J: Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001, 29:235-241.
• [9]Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS: To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science 2012, 335:1576-1577.
• [10]McGuire AL, Basford M, Dressler LG, Fullerton SM, Koenig BA, Li R, McCarty CA, Ramos E, Smith ME, Somkin CP, Waudby C, Wolf WA, Clayton EW: Ethical and practical challenges of sharing data from genome-wide association studies: the eMERGE Consortium experience. Genome Res 2011, 21:1001-1007.
• [11]Caulfield T, Ries N, Barr G: Variation in ethics review of multi-site research initiatives. Amsterdam Law Forum 2011, 3:85-100.
• [12]Blake V, Joffe S, Kodish E: Harmonization of ethics policies in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 2011, 39:70-78.
• [13]Lambert V, Glacken M: Engaging with children in research: Theoretical and practical implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nurs Ethics 2011, 18:781-801.
• [14]Avard D, Black L, Samuël J, Griener G, Knoppers BM, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): Best Practices for Health Research Involving Children and Adolescents. http://www.genomicsandpolicy.org/best-practices.html webcite
• [15]Samuël J, Ries NM, Malkin D, Knoppers BM: Biobanks and longitudinal studies: where are the children? GenEdit 2008, 6:1-8.
• [16]Avard D, Samuël J: Knoppers BM (eds): Paediatric Research in Canada. Les Éditions Thémis, Montréal; 2009.
• [17]Swartling U, Helgesson G, Hansson MG, Ludvigsson J: Split views among parents regarding children’s right to decide about participation in research: a questionnaire survey. J Med Ethics 2009, 35:450-455.
• [18]Knoppers BM, Avard D, Thorogood A: Informed consent in genetics. eLSin press
• [19]Holm S: Informed consent and the bio-banking of material from children. Genomics Soc Policy 2005, 1:16-26.
• [20]Avard D, Sénécal K, Madadi P, Sinnett D: Pediatric research and the return of individual research results. J Law Med Ethics 2011, 39:593-604.
• [21]Knoppers BM: Paediatric research and the communication of not-so incidental findings. Paediatr Child Health 2012, 17:190-192.
• [22]Kaufman D, Geller G, Leroy L, Murphy J, Scott J, Hudson K: Ethical implications of including children in a large biobank for genetic-epidemiologic research: a qualitative study of public opinion. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 2008, 148C:31-39.
• [23]Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman JJ, Dierickx K: Genetic research on stored tissue samples from minors: a systematic review of the ethical literature. Am J Med Genet A 2009, 149A:2346-2358.
• [24]Dove ES, Black L, Avard D, Knoppers BM: Privacy in Canadian paediatric biobanks: a changing landscape. A report delivered to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. http://www.humgen.org/int/GI/Privacy_in_Canadian_paediatric_Biobanks.pdf webcite
• [25]A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc. 2012. 2012 SCC 46 (Supreme Ct. of Canada)
• [26]Neuendorf KA: The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks; 2002.
• [27]2nd Edition of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf webcite
• [28]Halushka v. University of Saskatchewan. 1965. 53 D.L.R. (2d) 436 (Sask. Ct. of Appeal)
• [29]Weiss v. Solomon. 1989. 48 CCLT 280 (Que. Sup. Ct.)
• [30]Gammelgaard A, Bisgaard H: Seven-year-old children’s perceptions of participating in a comprehensive clinical birth cohort study. Clin Ethics 2009, 4:79-84.
• [31]Ries NM: Growing up as a research subject: ethical and legal issues in birth cohort studies involving genetic research. Health Law J 2007, 15:1-41.
• [32]Zawati MH, Knoppers BM: International normative perspectives on the return of individual research results and incidental findings in genomic biobanks. Genet Med 2012, 14:484-489.
• [33]Knoppers BM, Levesque E: Return of research results: how should research results be handled? J Law Med Ethics 2011, 39:575-576.
• [34]Thorogood A, Knoppers B, Dondorp W, de Wert G: Whole-genome sequencing and the physician. Clin Genet 2012, 81:511-513.
• [35]Wilfond BS, Carpenter KJ: Incidental findings in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 2008, 36:332-340.
• [36]Hens K, Nys H, Cassiman J, Dierickx K: The return of individual research findings in paediatric genetic research. J Med Ethics 2011, 37:179-183.
• [37]Davis DS: Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Rutgers Law J 1997, 28:549-592.
• [38]Knoppers BM, Saginur M: The Babel of genetic data terminology. Nat Biotechnol 2005, 23:925-927.
• [39]Boddington P, Curren L, Kaye J, Kanellopoulou N, Melham K, Gowans H, Hawkins N: Consent forms in genomics: the difference between law and practice. Eur J Health Law 2011, 18:491-519.
• [40]Fisher CB: Privacy and ethics in pediatric environmental health research-part I: genetic and prenatal testing. Environ Health Perspect 2006, 114:1617-1621.
• [41]Helseth S, Slettebø A: Research involving children: some ethical issues. Nurs Ethics 2004, 11:298-308.
• [42]Shmueli B, Blecher-Prigat A: Privacy for children. Columbia Human Rights Law Rev 2011, 42:759-795.
• [43]Lenk C, Beier K: Is the commercialisation of human tissue and body material forbidden in the countries of the European Union? J Med Ethics 2012, 38:342-346.
• [44]O’Lonergan TA, Forster-Harwood JE: Novel approach to parental permission and child assent for research: improving comprehension. Pediatrics 2011, 127:917-924.
• [45]Ménoni V, Lucas N, Leforestier JF, Doz F, Chatellier G, Jacqz-Aigain E, Giraud C, Tréluyer JM, Chappuy H: Readability of the written study information in pediatric research in France. PLoS One 2011, 6:e18484.
• [46]Wanzer MB, Wojtaszczyk AM, Schimert J, Missert L, Baker S, Baker R, Dunkle B: Enhancing the “informed” in informed consent: a pilot test of a multimedia presentation. Health Commun 2010, 25:365-374.
• [47]Wendler D, Rackoff JE, Emanuel EJ, Grady C: The ethics of paying for children’s participation in research. J Pediatr 2002, 141:166-171.
• [48]Fernhoff PM: Paying for children to participate in research: a slippery slope or an enlightened stairway? J Pediatr 2002, 141:153-154.
• [49]Iltis AS, DeVader S, Matsuo H: Payments to children and adolescents enrolled in research: a pilot study. Pediatrics 2006, 118:1546-1552.
• [50]Bagley SJ, Reynolds WW, Nelson RM: Is a “wage-payment” model for research participation appropriate for children? Pediatrics 2007, 119:46-51.
• [51]Manson NC, O’Neill O: Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2007.
• [52]Corrigan O: Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. Sociol Health Illn 2003, 25:768-792.
• [53]Henderson GE: Is informed consent broken? Am J Med Sci 2011, 342:267-272.
• [54]Pollock K: Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BMC Med Ethics 2012, 13:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [55]Matsui K, Lie RK, Turin TC, Kita Y: A randomized controlled trial of short and standard-length consent forms for a genetic cohort study: is longer better? J Epidemiol 2012, 22:308-316.
• [56]Schwartz V, Appelbaum PS: Improving the quality of informed consent to research. IRB 2008, 30:19-20.
• [57]Gibson BE, Stasiulis E, Gutfreund S, McDonald M, Dade L: Assessment of children’s capacity to consent for research: a descriptive qualitative study of researchers’ practices. J Med Ethics 2011, 37:504-509.