Suppr超能文献

早期癌症试验中的治疗误解:从分类到连续

Therapeutic Misperceptions in Early-Phase Cancer Trials: From Categorical to Continuous.

作者信息

Sisk Bryan A, Kodish Eric

机构信息

Washington University School of Medicine.

Cleveland Clinic.

出版信息

IRB. 2018 Jul-Aug;40(4):13-20. doi: 10.1002/eahr.406003.

Abstract

Appropriate enrollment in early-phase clinical trials demands that potential research participants understand and appreciate critical study-related information, because discrepancies in understanding or appreciation can potentially invalidate informed consent to participate in research. Four terms were previously developed to categorize these discrepancies: therapeutic "misconception," "therapeutic misestimation," "therapeutic optimism," and "unrealistic optimism." In this article, we propose a continuous framework of therapeutic misperceptions, rather than discrete categorical concepts. One end of this continuum contains discrepancies in understanding, and at the other end are discrepancies in appreciation. Categorical terminologies represent points along this continuum. Discrepancies in understanding and appreciation each lead to unique ethical concerns and likely require different interventions. This framework highlights the dearth of empirical work on the appreciation end of the continuum, especially related to navigating persistent discrepancies in appreciation. Employing a continuous framework of therapeutic misperceptions supports a nuanced approach to the unique circumstances of each research subject, aiding researchers in supporting truly informed consent.

摘要

早期临床试验的适当入组要求潜在研究参与者理解并领会与研究相关的关键信息,因为理解或领会方面的差异可能会使参与研究的知情同意无效。之前提出了四个术语来对这些差异进行分类:治疗性“误解”、“治疗性误判”、“治疗性乐观”和“不切实际的乐观”。在本文中,我们提出了一个关于治疗性误解的连续统一框架,而非离散的分类概念。这个连续统一体的一端包含理解方面的差异,另一端是领会方面的差异。分类术语代表了这个连续统一体上的各个点。理解和领会方面的差异各自引发独特的伦理问题,并且可能需要不同的干预措施。这个框架凸显了在连续统一体领会一端实证研究的匮乏,尤其是与处理领会方面持续存在的差异相关的研究。采用治疗性误解的连续统一框架支持针对每个研究对象的独特情况采取细致入微的方法,有助于研究人员支持真正的知情同意。

相似文献

8
Unrealistic optimism and the ethics of phase I cancer research.不切实际的乐观主义与 I 期癌症研究的伦理
J Med Ethics. 2013 Jun;39(6):403-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100752. Epub 2012 Oct 31.
9
Two concepts of therapeutic optimism.两种治疗乐观主义概念。
J Med Ethics. 2011 Sep;37(9):563-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.038943. Epub 2011 May 7.

本文引用的文献

1
Does benefit justify research with children?对儿童进行研究,益处是否足以成为正当理由?
Bioethics. 2018 Jan;32(1):27-35. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12385. Epub 2017 Sep 8.
4
On Wendler's new justification for pediatric research.论温德勒对儿科研究的新辩护。
Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(1):40-2. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2011.635837.
6
British and Canadian views on the ethics of paediatric clinical trials.英国和加拿大对儿科临床试验伦理的看法。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 May;63(5):431-6. doi: 10.1007/s00228-007-0281-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
10
Testing medications in children.在儿童中测试药物。
N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 31;347(18):1462-70. doi: 10.1056/NEJMhpr021646.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验