Suppr超能文献

研究中的相关信息与知情同意:为披露的主观标准辩护。

Relevant Information and Informed Consent in Research: In Defense of the Subjective Standard of Disclosure.

作者信息

Dranseika Vilius, Piasecki Jan, Waligora Marcin

机构信息

REMEDY, Research Ethics in Medicine Study Group, Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Michalowskiego 12, 31-126, Kraków, Poland.

Department of Logic and History of Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

出版信息

Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Feb;23(1):215-225. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9755-4. Epub 2016 Jan 20.

Abstract

In this article, we seek to contribute to the debate on the requirement of disclosure in the context of informed consent for research. We defend the subjective standard of disclosure and describe ways to implement this standard in research practice. We claim that the researcher should make an effort to find out what kinds of information are likely to be relevant for those consenting to research. This invites researchers to take empirical survey information seriously, attempt to understand the cultural context, talk to patients to be better able to understand what can be potentially different concerns and interests prevalent in the target population. The subjective standard of disclosure should be seen as a moral ideal that perhaps can never be perfectly implemented but still can and should be used as a normative ideal guiding research practice. In the light of these discussions, we call for more empirical research on what considerations are likely to be perceived as relevant by potential research participants recruited from different socio-economic and cultural groups.

摘要

在本文中,我们旨在为关于研究知情同意背景下信息披露要求的辩论做出贡献。我们捍卫信息披露的主观标准,并描述在研究实践中实施这一标准的方法。我们主张,研究者应努力弄清楚哪些信息可能与同意参与研究的人相关。这就要求研究者认真对待实证调查信息,尝试理解文化背景,与患者交谈,以便更好地理解目标人群中可能普遍存在的不同潜在关切和利益。信息披露的主观标准应被视为一种道德理想,或许永远无法完美实现,但仍然能够且应该用作指导研究实践的规范理想。鉴于这些讨论,我们呼吁针对从不同社会经济和文化群体招募的潜在研究参与者可能认为相关的考量因素开展更多实证研究。

相似文献

1
Relevant Information and Informed Consent in Research: In Defense of the Subjective Standard of Disclosure.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2017 Feb;23(1):215-225. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9755-4. Epub 2016 Jan 20.
2
Respecting autonomy without disclosing information.
Bioethics. 2013 Sep;27(7):388-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01971.x. Epub 2012 Apr 10.
3
Getting meaningful informed consent from older adults: a structured literature review of empirical research.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1998 Apr;46(4):517-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb02477.x.
4
Research on medical practices and the ethics of disclosure.
Pediatrics. 2015 Feb;135(2):208-10. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-3578. Epub 2015 Jan 12.
5
Acupuncture trials and informed consent.
J Med Ethics. 2007 Jan;33(1):43-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.016535.
6
Disclosure of information and informed consent: ethical and practical considerations.
J Child Neurol. 2009 Dec;24(12):1568-71. doi: 10.1177/0883073809337033. Epub 2009 Jun 9.
9
Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: an ethical and legal analysis.
Account Res. 2004 Apr-Jun;11(2):141-59. doi: 10.1080/03050620490512322.

引用本文的文献

1
Green bioethics, patient autonomy and informed consent in healthcare.
J Med Ethics. 2024 Jun 21;50(7):489-493. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109404.
2
Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors.
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Aug 4;24(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00933-w.
3
Uninformed Origins: Should We Be Advising Parents on the Source of Medicines and Therapies?
Health Care Anal. 2023 Dec;31(3-4):186-195. doi: 10.1007/s10728-023-00458-8. Epub 2023 Aug 3.
5
Applying a Digital Health Checklist and Readability Tools to Improve Informed Consent for Digital Health Research.
Front Digit Health. 2021 Jul 15;3:690901. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2021.690901. eCollection 2021.
6
Informational needs for participation in bioequivalence studies: the perspectives of experienced volunteers.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 Nov;75(11):1575-1582. doi: 10.1007/s00228-019-02738-6. Epub 2019 Aug 19.

本文引用的文献

1
Forensic uses of research biobanks: should donors be informed?
Med Health Care Philos. 2016 Mar;19(1):141-6. doi: 10.1007/s11019-015-9667-0.
2
What adolescents enrolled in genomic addiction research want to know about conflicts of interest.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015 Feb 1;147:272-5. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.12.004. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
5
Informing potential participants about research: observational study with an embedded randomized controlled trial.
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 3;8(10):e76435. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076435. eCollection 2013.
6
Public preferences regarding informed consent models for participation in population-based genomic research.
Genet Med. 2014 Jan;16(1):11-8. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.59. Epub 2013 May 9.
7
What potential research participants want to know about research: a systematic review.
BMJ Open. 2012 May 30;2(3). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000509. Print 2012.
8
Consent for use of clinical leftover biosample: a survey among Chinese patients and the general public.
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e36050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036050. Epub 2012 Apr 27.
9
In defense of broad consent.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2012 Jan;21(1):40-50. doi: 10.1017/S096318011100048X.
10
Patient perspectives on group benefits and harms in genetic research.
Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(3):135-42. doi: 10.1159/000317497. Epub 2010 Oct 8.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验