Corbett F, Oldham J, Lilford R
University of Leeds.
J Med Ethics. 1996 Aug;22(4):227-31. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.4.227.
To ascertain attitudes to different methods of obtaining informed consent for randomised clinical trials (RCTs).
Structured interviews with members of the public, medical secretaries and medical students.
The public were approached in a variety of public places. Medical secretaries and students were approached in their place of work.
Fifty members of the public, 25 secretaries and 25 students.
Views on RCTs were elicited, with particular emphasis on how subjects thought the concept of randomisation should be explained. Each participant was presented with descriptions of proposed clinical trials and asked to select his or her preference from a range of options.
Written information was preferred over verbal information in 91% of replies. Most respondents (86%) would prefer to sign a consent form. Of the seven statements explaining randomisation, a significant difference was found in favour of explanations that were less explicit about the play of chance (ANOVA; p = 0.0004). Eighty-three per cent of participants thought that randomised trials were morally acceptable when there was no prior medical preference between treatments. However, over half (55%) thought they would find it upsetting to be offered entry in such a trial and a quarter thought the outcome of treatment might be adversely affected.
Our results offer some support for the idea that "economy with truth" is less unsettling than a frank description of the stark reality of what randomisation means. It is a matter of debate as to whether, if we are correct, autonomy should have precedence over beneficence. The offer of entry in a clinical trial is likely to affect the experience of care for many people, especially if the process of randomisation is described explicitly. Potential participants should be given a detailed written explanation of the rationale for the trial and be asked to sign a consent form if they agree to take part.
确定公众对随机临床试验(RCT)获取知情同意不同方法的态度。
对公众、医学秘书和医学生进行结构化访谈。
在各类公共场所接触公众。在医学秘书和学生的工作场所接触他们。
50名公众、25名秘书和25名学生。
引出对随机临床试验的看法,特别强调受试者认为随机化概念应如何解释。向每位参与者展示拟进行的临床试验描述,并要求他们从一系列选项中选择自己的偏好。
91%的回复中,书面信息比口头信息更受青睐。大多数受访者(86%)更愿意签署同意书。在解释随机化的七条陈述中,发现对机会作用不太明确的解释存在显著差异(方差分析;p = 0.0004)。83%的参与者认为,当治疗之间没有先前的医学偏好时,随机试验在道德上是可以接受的。然而,超过一半(55%)的人认为被提供参加这样的试验会让他们感到不安,四分之一的人认为治疗结果可能会受到不利影响。
我们的结果为“对真相有所保留”比坦率描述随机化的残酷现实更不易引起不安这一观点提供了一些支持。如果我们是正确的,自主性是否应优先于行善仍是一个有争议的问题。提供参加临床试验可能会影响许多人的就医体验,特别是如果随机化过程被明确描述。应向潜在参与者详细书面解释试验的基本原理,并在他们同意参加时要求他们签署同意书。