Dawson Liza, Kass Nancy E
Kevric Corporation, Office of Biotechnology Activities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Sep;61(6):1211-22. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.004. Epub 2005 Apr 9.
Informed consent poses challenges in all settings. Challenges may be particularly great in international collaborative research, where cultural perspectives may differ, and where education levels and language may be barriers to participant understanding. We conducted a written survey and focus groups with US health researchers doing research in developing countries, asking about informed consent and other ethical issues in their research. We present here both qualitative and quantitative data relevant to informed consent. Qualitative data revealed that researchers' experiences and beliefs about informed consent fell into three paradigms: regulatory, community, and individual. The regulatory paradigm refers to researchers' views and practices relating to informed consent requirements of institutional review boards and other oversight bodies. The community paradigm refers to researchers' approach to the content and methodology of informed consent in the context of long-term relationships between research teams and study communities. Researchers emphasized the importance of these relationships for creating and maintaining communication fundamental to the informed consent process. Finally, the individual paradigm refers to researchers' views about individual participants' understanding and decision-making process regarding research. Researchers described community-level influences on participants' decision-making, but stressed the need for individual comprehension and voluntary participation. While these paradigms are distinct, they also are intertwined. Quantitative data supported the existence of these three paradigms in respondents' characterization of informed consent. Researchers frequently stated that legal language on the consent forms was meaningless (52%). Forty-four percent of researchers had consulted with community leaders, and 23% believed the consent process focuses too much on the individual, rather than on family or community. Most researchers (82%) reported that the consent process was an important means of educating participants about the study. Fifty-four percent of researchers believed participants did not understand placebos. Further research is needed to understand how culture and relationships affect research participation, and to provide information and dialogue among researchers, oversight bodies and community representatives about appropriate ways to approach informed consent in international research.
知情同意在所有情况下都存在挑战。在国际合作研究中,挑战可能尤为巨大,因为文化观念可能存在差异,而且教育水平和语言可能成为参与者理解的障碍。我们对在美国从事发展中国家研究的健康研究人员进行了书面调查和焦点小组访谈,询问他们研究中的知情同意及其他伦理问题。我们在此呈现与知情同意相关的定性和定量数据。定性数据显示,研究人员对知情同意的经历和信念可分为三种范式:监管范式、社区范式和个体范式。监管范式指研究人员与机构审查委员会及其他监督机构的知情同意要求相关的观点和做法。社区范式指研究团队与研究社区之间长期关系背景下,研究人员对知情同意内容和方法的处理方式。研究人员强调这些关系对于建立和维持知情同意过程至关重要的沟通的重要性。最后,个体范式指研究人员对个体参与者关于研究的理解和决策过程的看法。研究人员描述了社区层面因素对参与者决策的影响,但强调了个体理解和自愿参与的必要性。虽然这些范式各不相同,但它们也相互交织。定量数据支持了这三种范式在受访者对知情同意的描述中的存在。研究人员经常表示同意书上的法律语言毫无意义(52%)。44%的研究人员曾与社区领袖协商,23%的研究人员认为同意过程过于关注个体,而不是家庭或社区。大多数研究人员(82%)报告称同意过程是向参与者介绍研究的重要方式。54%的研究人员认为参与者不理解安慰剂。需要进一步研究以了解文化和关系如何影响研究参与,并为研究人员、监督机构和社区代表提供关于国际研究中进行知情同意的适当方式的信息和对话。