Guillemin Marilys, McDougall Rosalind, Martin Dominique, Hallowell Nina, Brookes Alison, Gillam Lynn
a Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne.
b Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne and School of Medicine, Deakin University.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017 Apr-Jun;8(2):99-105. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2017.1305007. Epub 2017 Mar 16.
Clinical research is increasingly being undertaken in primary care settings. This development offers both benefits and challenges. The ethical challenges of occupying the roles of both clinician and researcher may be accentuated in primary care settings, where relationships are longer lasting and medical conditions are less acute. This article examines primary care physicians' experiences of undertaking research, particularly their decision making about recruiting patients in the context of their own dual roles.
This project comprised in-depth interviews with eight Australian primary care physicians working in general or specialist practices that were involved in clinical research. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.
Physicians involved in recruiting their patients into clinical trials acted as gatekeepers; they were selective about which patients to recruit and did not necessarily approach all patients who met the research eligibility criteria. Physicians' accounts suggested they prioritized their clinician role over their researcher role. In addition to the rigor and merit of the research, physicians considered the possible benefit of trial participation for individual patients. Physicians described making recruitment decisions based on their perceived knowledge of patients' personal, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics-often derived from their long-standing relationships with their patients.
Our data show evidence of gatekeeping by primary care physicians when deciding to participate in, and recruit their patients to, clinical studies. We argue that such gatekeeping is a way of addressing the dual and sometimes conflicting roles of clinician and researcher. It need not be ethically problematic, but primary care physicians should be reflexive about their recruitment practices and biases. In addition, this form of gatekeeping should be explicitly recognized in protocol design and the analysis of trial findings.
越来越多的临床研究在基层医疗环境中开展。这一发展既带来了益处,也带来了挑战。在基层医疗环境中,医患关系持续时间更长且病情不太危急,担任临床医生和研究者双重角色所带来的伦理挑战可能会更加突出。本文探讨基层医疗医生开展研究的经历,尤其是他们在自身双重角色背景下关于招募患者的决策。
该项目包括对八名在参与临床研究的普通或专科诊所工作的澳大利亚基层医疗医生进行深入访谈。采用归纳主题分析法对数据进行分析。
参与将患者招募到临床试验中的医生充当把关人;他们对招募哪些患者很有选择性,并不一定会接触所有符合研究入选标准的患者。医生们的描述表明,他们将临床医生角色置于研究者角色之上。除了研究的严谨性和价值外,医生们还考虑了试验参与对个体患者可能带来的益处。医生们描述说,他们根据对患者个人、行为和态度特征的认知来做出招募决策,这些认知往往源于他们与患者长期的关系。
我们的数据显示,基层医疗医生在决定参与临床研究并招募患者时存在把关现象。我们认为,这种把关是应对临床医生和研究者双重且有时相互冲突的角色的一种方式。它不一定存在伦理问题,但基层医疗医生应该反思自己的招募做法和偏见。此外,在方案设计和试验结果分析中应明确认识到这种把关形式。