Suppr超能文献

母亲对涉及儿童研究保障措施的看法。

Maternal Perceptions of Safeguards for Research Involving Children.

作者信息

Rostami Maryam, Paik Kim Jane, Turner-Essel Laura, Roberts Laura Weiss

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine.

出版信息

J Child Fam Stud. 2022 May;31(5):1220-1231. doi: 10.1007/s10826-021-02037-8. Epub 2021 Aug 7.

Abstract

The vitality of clinical research and the health of the public relies on continued efforts to engage children in clinical research in a fully protected and ethically robust manner. Parents serve as proxy decision-makers assessing the risks and benefits of any given study in order to do what is in the best interest of their child. This study investigated maternal perceptions of research safeguards and mothers' willingness to enroll their children in clinical research studies. We hypothesized that mothers' perceptions of the protectiveness of safeguard procedures utilized in clinical research would be associated with mothers' willingness to enroll their children in research studies with such safeguards. Through a survey conducted via Amazon Mechanical Turk, mothers were asked to rate the perceived protectiveness of four safeguard procedures (confidential data coding, data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs), institutional review boards (IRBs), and informed consent) and the degree to which they were willing to have their child participate in research studies in the presence of each of the four safeguard procedures. Respondents generally perceived safeguard procedures to be protective. Mothers' trust in researchers' honesty positively impacted perceptions of the protectiveness of research safeguard procedures and willingness to enroll children in research. Mothers of only healthy children perceived research safeguards to be more protective than mothers with at least one child with at least one health issue. This study provides insight into whether maternal perceptions of the protectiveness of different safeguard procedures are associated with mothers' willingness to enroll their children in research.

摘要

临床研究的活力和公众的健康依赖于持续不断地努力,以充分保护且符合伦理规范的方式让儿童参与临床研究。父母作为代理决策者,评估任何特定研究的风险和益处,以便做出符合孩子最佳利益的决策。本研究调查了母亲对研究保障措施的看法以及母亲让孩子参与临床研究的意愿。我们假设,母亲对临床研究中使用的保障程序的保护性认知,将与母亲让孩子参与有此类保障措施的研究的意愿相关。通过亚马逊土耳其机器人平台进行的一项调查,要求母亲们对四种保障程序(机密数据编码、数据与安全监测委员会(DSMBs)、机构审查委员会(IRBs)和知情同意)的感知保护性进行评分,以及对在这四种保障程序存在的情况下,她们愿意让孩子参与研究的程度进行评分。受访者普遍认为保障程序具有保护性。母亲对研究人员诚实度的信任对研究保障程序的保护性认知以及让孩子参与研究的意愿产生了积极影响。只有健康孩子的母亲比至少有一个患有至少一种健康问题孩子的母亲,认为研究保障措施更具保护性。本研究深入探讨了母亲对不同保障程序保护性的认知是否与母亲让孩子参与研究的意愿相关。

相似文献

1
Maternal Perceptions of Safeguards for Research Involving Children.
J Child Fam Stud. 2022 May;31(5):1220-1231. doi: 10.1007/s10826-021-02037-8. Epub 2021 Aug 7.
2
Attitudes of Mothers Regarding Willingness to Enroll Their Children in Research.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):452-464. doi: 10.1177/1556264620927583. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
3
Perceived protectiveness of research safeguards and influences on willingness to participate in research: A novel MTurk pilot study.
J Psychiatr Res. 2021 Jun;138:200-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.04.005. Epub 2021 Apr 6.
5
Do human subject safeguards matter to potential participants in psychiatric genetic research?
J Psychiatr Res. 2019 Sep;116:95-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.06.004. Epub 2019 Jun 8.
6
Factors influencing mothers' decision to enroll their HIV-negative children in a hypothetical HIV vaccine trial.
Future Virol. 2017 Jan;12(1):19-28. doi: 10.2217/fvl-2016-0090. Epub 2016 Dec 21.
7
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
9
Factors that influence parental attitudes toward enrollment in type 1 diabetes trials.
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e44341. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044341. Epub 2012 Aug 28.
10
Influence of Dispositional Optimism on Ethically Salient Research Perspectives: A Pilot Study.
Ethics Hum Res. 2022 May;44(3):12-23. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500126.

本文引用的文献

1
The role of data and safety monitoring boards in implementation trials: When are they justified?
J Clin Transl Sci. 2020 Mar 5;4(3):229-232. doi: 10.1017/cts.2020.19.
2
Attitudes of Mothers Regarding Willingness to Enroll Their Children in Research.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):452-464. doi: 10.1177/1556264620927583. Epub 2020 Jun 18.
3
Institutional Review Board Assessment-Balancing Efficiency and Quality.
Ochsner J. 2020 Spring;20(1):50-55. doi: 10.31486/toj.19.0075.
5
Negative association of perceived risk and willingness to participate in innovative psychiatric research protocols.
J Psychiatr Res. 2020 Mar;122:9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.12.010. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
7
Measuring the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Jul;14(3):187-189. doi: 10.1177/1556264618804686. Epub 2018 Oct 8.
9
An Evaluation of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Mar;13(2):149-154. doi: 10.1177/1745691617706516.
10
Receptiveness to participation in genetic research: A pilot study comparing views of people with depression, diabetes, or no illness.
J Psychiatr Res. 2017 Nov;94:156-162. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.07.002. Epub 2017 Jul 4.

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