Strengths and weaknesses of guideline approaches to safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship

BMC Medicine

Johannes JM van Delden¹  Rieke van der Graaf¹  Sara AS Dekking¹ 

[1]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

关键词: Undue influence;    Research nurses;    Double roles;    Research ethics;    Clinical research;    Ethical guidelines;    Voluntary informed consent;    Dependent relationships;   

Others  :  854934
DOI  :  10.1186/1741-7015-12-52

 received in 2013-12-23, accepted in 2014-02-24,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

It is thought that a dependent relationship between patients and physicians who enroll their own patients in research compromises voluntary informed consent. Therefore, several ethical guidelines for human subject research provide approaches to mitigate these compromises. Currently, these approaches have not been critically evaluated. In this article, we analyze the approaches of ethical guidelines to manage the influence of a dependent relationship between patients and physicians on voluntary informed consent and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.

Methods

We performed a review of international ethical guidance documents on human subject research, listed in the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics and found through cross referencing. We also searched Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs) and the World Health Organization (WHO) website. Guidelines from all years were eligible for inclusion. The date last searched was December 2013.

Discussion

We identified two basic guideline approaches: 1. a process approach, which focuses on the person who obtains informed consent, that is, an independent individual, such as a research nurse or counselor; and 2. a content approach, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation. Both approaches are valuable, either because the influence of the physician may diminish or because it empowers patients to make voluntary decisions. However, the approaches also face challenges. First, research nurses are not always independent. Second, physician-investigators will be informed about decisions of their patients. Third, involvement of a counselor is sometimes unfeasible. Fourth, the right to withdraw may be difficult to act upon in a dependent relationship.

Conclusions

Current guideline approaches to protect voluntary informed consent within a dependent relationship are suboptimal. To prevent compromises to voluntary informed consent, consent should not only be obtained by an independent individual, but this person should also emphasize the voluntary nature of participation. At the same time, dependency as such does not imply undue influence. Sometimes the physician may be best qualified to provide information, for example, for a very specialized study. Still, the research nurse should obtain informed consent. In addition, patients should be able to consult a counselor, who attends the informed consent discussions and is concerned with their interests. Finally, both physicians and research nurses should disclose research interests.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Dekking et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Klitzman R: Voluntariness of consent to research: a preliminary empirical investigation. IRB Ethics Human Res 2009, 31:10-14.
• [2]Black L, Batist G, Avard D, Rousseau C, Diaz Z, Knoppers BM: Physician recruitment of patients to non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials: ethics revisited. Front Pharmacol 2013, 4:25.
• [3]Levine RJ: Clinical trials and physicians as double agents. Yale J Biol Med 1992, 65:65-74.
• [4]Miller FG: Recruiting research participants. In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Edited by Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008:397-403.
• [5]Miller VA, Nelson RM: Factors related to voluntary parental decision-making in pediatric oncology. Pediatrics 2012, 129:903-909.
• [6]Gammelgaard A, Mortensen OS, Rossel P: Patients’ perceptions of informed consent in acute myocardial infarction research: a questionnaire based survey of the consent process in the DANAMI-2 trial. Heart 2004, 90:1124-1128.
• [7]Kass NE, Sugarman J, Faden R, Schoch-Spana M: Trust, the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep 1996, 26:25-29.
• [8]Kinney AY, Richards C, Vernon SW, Vogel VG: The effect of physician recommendation on enrollment in the Breast Cancer Chemoprevention Trial. Prev Med 1998, 27:713-719.
• [9]Knifed E, Lipsman N, Mason W, Bernstein M: Patients’ perception of the informed consent process for neurooncology clinical trials. Neuro Oncol 2008, 10:348-354.
• [10]ACHRE Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report: ACHRE Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S., Government Printing Office; 1995.
• [11]Eggly S, Albrecht TL, Harper FW, Foster T, Franks MM, Ruckdeschel JC: Oncologists’ recommendations of clinical trial participation to patients. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 70:143-148.
• [12]Kleiderman E, Avard D, Black L, Diaz Z, Rousseau C, Knoppers BM: Recruiting terminally ill patients into non-therapeutic oncology studies: views of health professionals. BMC Med Ethics 2012, 13:33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS): International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 2002.
• [14]Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC): National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Canberra, ACT, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2007.
• [15]Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA Jr, Morse LJ, O’Bannon JM III, Goldrich MS, Ray P, Weiss M, Sade RM, Spillman MA: Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 2002, 287:78-84.
• [16]Gibbs Brown J, Department of Health and Human Services: Recruiting Human Subjects: Pressures in Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research. Washington, D.C: Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.
• [17]Ethical issues in clinical research in neurology: advancing knowledge and protecting human research subjects. The Ethics and Humanities Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology Neurology 1998, 50:592-595.
• [18]The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Protection of Human Subjects. Washington, D.C: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1978:56174-56198. [Institutional Review Board; Report and Recommendations]
• [19]Snyder L, American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights Committee: American College of Physicians Ethics Manual: sixth edition. Ann Intern Med 2012, 156:73-104.
• [20]Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; 2010.
• [21]World Medical Association: World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310:2191-2194.
• [22]Brody H, Miller FG: The clinician-investigator: unavoidable but manageable tension. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2003, 13:329-346.
• [23]Hewlett S: Consent to clinical research – adequately voluntary or substantially influenced? J Med Ethics 1996, 22:232-237.
• [24]Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Klitzman R: Voluntariness of consent to research: a conceptual model. Hastings Cent Rep 2009, 39:30-39.
• [25]Loh WY, Butow PN, Brown RF, Boyle F: Ethical communication in clinical trials. Issues faced by data managers in obtaining informed consent. Cancer 2002, 95:2414-2421.
• [26]Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C: An ethical framework for biomedical research. In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Edited by Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:123-135.
• [27]The Nuremberg Code: Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946 to April 1949. Washington D.C: US Government Printing Office; 1949:1949-1953.
• [28]The 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. Washington, D.C: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1978:2-18.
• [29]National Science Foundation: 45 CFR Part 690: Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Subpart A: The Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects. Washington D.C: Department of Health and Human Services; 1981:1-13.
• [30]National Health Council Brazil, Resolution 196/96: Rules on research involving human subjects. National Health Council Brazil: Brasília; 1996.
• [31]International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceutical for Human Use: The ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline - Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Geneva: International Conference on Harmonization; 1996.
• [32]U.K. Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials. London, UK: UK Medical Research Council; 1998.
• [33]Uganda National Council of Science and Technology (UNCST): Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research Involving Human Subjects in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Uganda National Council of Science and Technology; 1998.
• [34]Indian Council on Medical Research: Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects. New Delhi, India: Indian Council on Medical Research; 2000.
• [35]Council of Europe: Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research. Strasbourg, 25 January 2005. [http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm webcite]
• [36]South African Medical Research Council: Guidelines on Ethics for Medical Research: General Principles. Cape Town, South Africa: South African Medical Research Council; 2002.
• [37]Department of Health, South Africa: Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials in Human Participants in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Health, South Africa; 2000.
• [38]Tanzania National Health Research Forum: Guidelines on Ethics for Health Research in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Tanzania National Health Research Forum; 2009.
• [39]Pellegrino ED: Toward a reconstruction of medical morality. J Med Humanit Bioeth 1987, 8:7-18.
• [40]Veatch RM: Assessing Pellegrino’s reconstruction of medical morality. Am J Bioeth 2006, 6:72-75.
• [41]Israel Patient’s Rights Act 1996. [http://waml.haifa.ac.il/index/reference/legislation/israel/israel1.htm webcite]
• [42]UK General Medical Council: Consent: Patients and Doctors Making Decisions Together. 2008, 1-60. [http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/index.asp webcite]
• [43]The New Zealand’s Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights. 1996. [http://www.hdc.org.nz/the-act--code/the-code-of-rights webcite]
• [44]Nelson RM, Beauchamp T, Miller VA, Reynolds W, Ittenbach RF, Luce MF: The concept of voluntary consent. Am J Bioethics 2011, 11:6-16.
• [45]Hurst SA: Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics 2008, 22:191-202.
• [46]Lange MM, Rogers W, Dodds S: Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward. Bioethics 2013, 27:333-340.
• [47]Luna F, Vanderpoel S: Not the usual suspects: addressing layers of vulnerability. Bioethics 2013, 27:325-332.
• [48]de Vries MC, Houtlosser M, Wit JM, Engberts DP, Bresters D, Kaspers GJ, van Leeuwen E: Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents’ and physicians’ experiences. BMC Med Ethics 2011, 12:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [49]Alpert JE, Biggs MM, Davis L, Shores-Wilson K, Harlan WR, Schneider GW, Ford AL, Farabaugh A, Stegman D, Ritz AL, Husain MM, Macleod L, Wisniewski SR, Rush AJ, STAR*D Investigators: Enrolling research subjects from clinical practice: ethical and procedural issues in the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) trial. Psychiatry Res 2006, 141:193-200.
• [50]Fisher JA: Co-ordinating ‘ethical’ clinical trials: the role of research coordinators in the contract research industry. Sociol Health Illn 2006, 28:678-694.
• [51]Spilsbury K, Petherick E, Cullum N, Nelson A, Nixon J, Mason S: The role and potential contribution of clinical research nurses to clinical trials. J Clin Nurs 2008, 17:549-557.
• [52]Hastings CE, Fisher CA, McCabe MA, National Clinical Research Nursing C, Allison J, Brassil D, Offenhartz M, Browning S, DeCandia E, Medina R, Duer-Hefele J, McClary K, Mullen N, Ottosen M, Britt S, Sanchez T, Turbini V: Clinical research nursing: a critical resource in the national research enterprise. Nurs Outlook 2012, 60:149-156.
• [53]Coulson S, Phelan L: Clinical research in paediatric oncology and the role of the research nurse in the UK. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2000, 4:154-161.
• [54]Davis AM, Hull SC, Grady C, Wilfond BS, Henderson GE: The invisible hand in clinical research: the study coordinator’s critical role in human subjects protection. J Law Med Ethics 2002, 30:411-419.
• [55]McCabe M: Cahill Lawrence CA: The clinical research nurse. Am J Nurs 2007, 107:13.
• [56]Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C: What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000, 283:2701-2711.
• [57]Gillies K, Entwistle VA: Supporting positive experiences and sustained participation in clinical trials: looking beyond information provision. J Med Ethics 2012, 38:751-756.
• [58]Kaewpoonsri N, Okanurak K, Kitayaporn D, Kaewkungwal J, Vijaykadga S, Thamaree S: Factors related to volunteer comprehension of informed consent for a clinical trial. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2006, 37:996-1004.
• [59]Mandava A, Pace C, Campbell B, Emanuel E, Grady C: The quality of informed consent: mapping the landscape. A review of empirical data from developing and developed countries. J Med Ethics 2012, 38:356-365.
• [60]Kennedy T, Regehr G, Rosenfield J, Roberts SW, Lingard L: Exploring the gap between knowledge and behavior: a qualitative study of clinician action following an educational intervention. Acad Med 2004, 79:386-393.
• [61]Horwitz RH, Roberts LW, Seal DW, Joseph P, Maschke KJ, Verdier RI, Nerette S, Pape JW, Fitzgerald DW: Assessing whether consent for a clinical trial is voluntary. Ann Intern Med 2013, 158:222-224.
• [62]Entwistle VA, Cribb A, Watt IS: Shared decision-making: enhancing the clinical relevance. J R Soc Med 2012, 105:416-421.
• [63]McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA: Experiences of recruitment to clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013, 18:233-241.
• [64]Entwistle VA, Carter SM, Cribb A, McCaffery K: Supporting patient autonomy: the importance of clinician-patient relationships. J Gen Intern Med 2010, 25:741-745.