Suppr超能文献

大型临床研究中纳入“利益相关方”的伦理考量:RECOVER 倡议的启示。

Ethical Considerations for Enrolling "Invested Parties" in Large-Scale Clinical Studies: Insights from the RECOVER Initiative.

机构信息

Assistant professor in the division of medical ethics in the Department of Population Health at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Professor of bioethics at the Stritch School of Medicine at the Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics & Health Policy at Loyola University of Chicago.

出版信息

Ethics Hum Res. 2024 Sep-Oct;46(5):2-12. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500221.

Abstract

Research institutions often lack policies addressing the risks and benefits of enrolling "invested parties" such as investigators, research staff, and patient, caregiver, and community representatives (groups most affected by a disease or intervention) in studies where they have direct involvement. Invested parties may have both strong motivations to study the condition or intervention and to participate as study subjects. More guidance is needed to promote appropriate access to research participation and mitigate potential risks. This article addresses the gap in guidance by presenting an ethical framework and practical guidelines for the enrollment of invested parties. Drawing from experiences with the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a large multisite observational cohort study, we argue that invested parties should not be categorically excluded from enrollment in their own research studies if certain criteria are met and appropriate safeguards are in place. We underscore the need to balance inclusion with fairness, promote valid voluntary informed consent, ensure data privacy, protect scientific validity, and mitigate unique risks to invested parties as participants. Additionally, we recommend regular reporting and empirical assessment to evaluate the impact of enrolling invested parties on participants and study outcomes.

摘要

研究机构通常缺乏政策来解决将“利益相关方”(如研究者、研究人员以及患者、照护者和社区代表(受疾病或干预措施影响最大的群体))直接纳入其有直接参与的研究中的风险和获益。利益相关方可能具有强烈的动机来研究这种疾病或干预措施,并作为研究对象参与其中。需要更多的指导来促进适当参与研究并减轻潜在风险。本文通过提出一个伦理框架和实用指南来解决指导方面的差距,旨在为利益相关方的纳入提供指导。本文借鉴了大型多地点观察队列研究——研究 COVID 以增强康复(RECOVER)倡议的经验,我们认为,如果满足某些标准并采取适当的保障措施,就不应该将利益相关方一概排除在他们自己的研究之外。我们强调需要在包容性和公平性之间取得平衡,促进有效的自愿知情同意,确保数据隐私,保护科学有效性,并减轻利益相关方作为参与者的独特风险。此外,我们建议定期报告和实证评估,以评估纳入利益相关方对参与者和研究结果的影响。

相似文献

4
MarkVCID cerebral small vessel consortium: I. Enrollment, clinical, fluid protocols.
Alzheimers Dement. 2021 Apr;17(4):704-715. doi: 10.1002/alz.12215. Epub 2021 Jan 21.
5
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
7
Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 4;4(4):MR000038. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2.
8
Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 9;2014(5):CD003717. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003717.pub3.

本文引用的文献

2
Ethical Inclusion of Health Care Workers in Covid-19 Research.
Ethics Hum Res. 2021 Mar;43(2):19-27. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500082. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
4
Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Recommendations From a Delphi Panel.
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 16;169(8):559-563. doi: 10.7326/M18-1334. Epub 2018 Sep 25.
5
6
What makes clinical research ethical?
JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-11. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.
7
The therapeutic misconception: informed consent in psychiatric research.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 1982;5(3-4):319-29. doi: 10.1016/0160-2527(82)90026-7.

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