Rotman Institute of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B8, Canada.
Trials. 2012 Jul 26;13:116. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-116.
This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the sixth of the questions posed, namely, what is the role and authority of gatekeepers in CRTs in health research? 'Gatekeepers' are individuals or bodies that represent the interests of cluster members, clusters, or organizations. The need for gatekeepers arose in response to the difficulties in obtaining informed consent because of cluster randomization, cluster-level interventions, and cluster size. In this paper, we call for a more restrictive understanding of the role and authority of gatekeepers.Previous papers in this series have provided solutions to the challenges posed by informed consent in CRTs without the need to invoke gatekeepers. We considered that consent to randomization is not required when cluster members are approached for consent at the earliest opportunity and before any study interventions or data-collection procedures have started. Further, when cluster-level interventions or cluster size means that obtaining informed consent is not possible, a waiver of consent may be appropriate. In this paper, we suggest that the role of gatekeepers in protecting individual interests in CRTs should be limited. Generally, gatekeepers do not have the authority to provide proxy consent for cluster members. When a municipality or other community has a legitimate political authority that is empowered to make such decisions, cluster permission may be appropriate; however, gatekeepers may usefully protect cluster interests in other ways. Cluster consultation may ensure that the CRT addresses local health needs, and is conducted in accord with local values and customs. Gatekeepers may also play an important role in protecting the interests of organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, general practices, and schools. In these settings, permission to access the organization relies on resource implications and adherence to institutional policies.
这篇文章是一系列探讨健康研究中群组随机试验(CRT)伦理问题的论文之一。在本系列的引言性论文中,我们提出了 CRT 要建立在坚实的伦理基础上必须解决的六个问题领域。本文探讨了提出的第六个问题,即健康研究中的 CRT 中守门人的角色和权限是什么?“守门人”是代表群组成员、群组或组织利益的个人或团体。由于群组随机化、群组层面的干预和群组规模,需要有守门人来解决获得知情同意的困难。在本文中,我们呼吁对守门人的角色和权限有更严格的理解。本系列之前的论文已经提出了解决 CRT 中知情同意所带来的挑战的方案,而无需援引守门人。我们认为,当在最早的机会向群组成员提出同意书,并在任何研究干预或数据收集程序开始之前,就不需要同意随机化。此外,当群组层面的干预或群组规模意味着无法获得知情同意时,放弃同意可能是合适的。在本文中,我们建议应限制守门人在 CRT 中保护个人利益的角色。通常,守门人无权代表群组成员提供代理同意。当一个市或其他社区具有合法的政治权力来做出此类决策时,可能需要获得群组许可;然而,守门人可以以其他方式保护群组的利益。群组协商可以确保 CRT 解决当地的健康需求,并符合当地的价值观和习俗。守门人还可以在保护医院、养老院、全科医生和学校等组织的利益方面发挥重要作用。在这些环境中,访问组织的许可取决于资源影响和对机构政策的遵守。