Psychol Addict Behav. 2018 Sep;32(6):678. doi: 10.1037/adb0000408.
Reports an error in "Evaluating autonomy, beneficence, and justice with substance-using populations: Implications for clinical research participation" by Justin C. Strickland and William W. Stoops (, 2018[Aug], Vol 32[5], 552-563). In the article, an incorrect Online First date appears in the article. The correct Online First publication date is July 12, 2018. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-31276-001.) Narrow inclusion criteria regarding substance use are commonplace in clinical research. This is due, in part, to assumptions about capacity to make "rational" decisions regarding participation by these populations. This study evaluated decision-making and perceptions surrounding each of the Belmont principles among individuals with cocaine use histories, cigarette smokers without illicit substance use histories, and controls without cigarette or illicit substance use histories. Cocaine ( = 124), cigarette ( = 128), and control ( = 145) groups were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Participants completed measures evaluating research participation after reading two hypothetical study vignettes varying in risk. Assays assessed capacity to consent, perceived research burden, and endorsement of research participation by various populations. Individuals reporting cocaine use showed a reduced capacity to consent compared to controls, but this effect was small and largely explained by sociodemographic differences (e.g., race) rather than substance use history. Perceived research burden in the cigarette group was lower than in the cocaine group, but this difference was of a small to medium effect size. All groups reported substantively lower endorsement of research participation by individuals with illicit substance use histories relative to healthy adults, with less support indicated by control and cigarette groups compared to the cocaine group. Few differences were observed by substance use history regarding perceptions of and decision-making surrounding research participation. These data highlight the need for the continued study of evidence-based ethics and support more widespread acceptance of research participation by individuals with substance use histories in clinical research. (PsycINFO Database Record
报告了 Justin C. Strickland 和 William W. Stoops 的文章“Evaluating autonomy, beneficence, and justice with substance-using populations: Implications for clinical research participation”(《用物质使用人群评估自主性、善行和公正:对临床研究参与的影响》,2018[8 月],第 32 卷[5],552-563)中的一个错误。在这篇文章中,文章的在线首发日期不正确。正确的在线首发日期是 2018 年 7 月 12 日。这篇文章的在线版本已经过更正。(原文摘要如下)临床研究中,对物质使用的严格纳入标准很常见。这在一定程度上是由于人们对这些人群参与研究的“理性”决策能力的假设。本研究评估了具有可卡因使用史的个体、无非法物质使用史的吸烟者和无吸烟或非法物质使用史的对照组个体对每个贝尔蒙特原则的决策和认知。可卡因组(n=124)、吸烟组(n=128)和对照组(n=145)通过亚马逊的 Mechanical Turk 招募。参与者在阅读了两个风险不同的假设研究案例后,完成了评估研究参与的措施。检测方法评估了不同人群的同意能力、对研究负担的认知以及对研究参与的认可。与对照组相比,报告可卡因使用的个体的同意能力降低,但这种影响很小,主要是由于社会人口统计学差异(例如,种族)而不是物质使用史造成的。吸烟组的研究负担感知低于可卡因组,但这种差异的效应大小为小到中等。与健康成年人相比,所有组都报告说,有非法物质使用史的个体对研究的参与支持率显著降低,对照组和吸烟组对研究的支持率低于可卡因组。根据物质使用史,在对研究参与的看法和决策方面观察到的差异很小。这些数据突出表明需要继续研究循证伦理学,并支持更多具有物质使用史的个体在临床研究中更广泛地接受研究参与。