McHugh Kelly R, Swamy Geeta K, Hernandez Adrian F
Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2018 Dec;2(6):384-392. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.1.
Healthcare institutions may often prohibit "cold-calling" or direct contact with a potential research participant when the person initiating contact is unknown to the patient. This policy aims to maintain patient privacy, but may have unintended consequences as a result of physician gatekeeping. In this review, we discuss recruitment policies at the top academic institutions. We propose an ethical framework for evaluating cold-call policies based on three principles of research ethics. In order to maximize engagement of potential research participants, while maintaining patient privacy and autonomy, we then propose several alternative solutions to restrictive cold-call policies, including opt-in or opt-out platforms, a team-based approach, electronic solutions, and best practices for recruitment. As healthcare has evolved with more collaborative, patient-centered, data-driven care, the engagement of potential research participants should similarly evolve.
当患者不认识主动联系的人时,医疗机构通常可能会禁止“电话推销”或与潜在研究参与者进行直接接触。这项政策旨在维护患者隐私,但由于医生把关可能会产生意想不到的后果。在本综述中,我们讨论了顶尖学术机构的招募政策。我们基于研究伦理的三项原则提出了一个评估电话推销政策的伦理框架。为了在保持患者隐私和自主性的同时最大限度地提高潜在研究参与者的参与度,我们随后提出了一些替代限制性电话推销政策的解决方案,包括选择加入或选择退出平台、基于团队的方法、电子解决方案以及招募的最佳实践。随着医疗保健向更具协作性、以患者为中心、数据驱动的护理方向发展,潜在研究参与者的参与度也应相应地发展。