Literature DB >> 12226588

Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review.

Robert M Nelson1, Jon F Merz.   

Abstract

This article explores the vulnerability of research subjects either to undue influence or to coercion. The authors present a brief review of the requirement for voluntariness in research, and what is known about research participation. They then examine characteristics of potential subjects, researchers, researcher actions, and the research setting that can influence the voluntariness of subject's decisions to participate. Throughout the paper, empirical work that relates to voluntariness is used to illustrate the conceptual material. Voluntariness is viewed as an issue of self-control. Threats to voluntariness can arise from vulnerabilities of potential subjects as well as from characteristics of the researcher, the researcher's acts, and the research setting. Moral concerns about potential influences may be assessed by the likelihood that they will control or dominate a potential subject's decision to participate in research. Policy responses may be appropriate where the probability of control is too high.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12226588     DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000023958.28108.9C

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  22 in total

Review 1.  Should desperate volunteers be included in randomised controlled trials?

Authors:  P Allmark; S Mason
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 2.  Evidence-based ethics for neurology and psychiatry research.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  NeuroRx       Date:  2004-07

Review 3.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

4.  Voluntary consent: why a value-neutral concept won't work.

Authors:  Alan Wertheimer
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  2012-05-02

5.  Acceptance of a community-based navigator program for cancer control among urban African Americans.

Authors:  Chanita Hughes Halbert; Vanessa Briggs; Marjorie Bowman; Brenda Bryant; Debbie Chatman Bryant; Ernestine Delmoor; Monica Ferguson; Marvella E Ford; Jerry C Johnson; Joseph Purnell; Rodney Rogers; Benita Weathers
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2013-10-29

6.  Avoiding Exploitation in Phase I Clinical Trials: More than (Un)Just Compensation.

Authors:  Matt Lamkin; Carl Elliott
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Factors related to voluntary parental decision-making in pediatric oncology.

Authors:  Victoria A Miller; Robert M Nelson
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  Worth the risk? Relationship of incentives to risk and benefit perceptions and willingness to participate in schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Daniel S Kim; Ian E Fellows; Barton W Palmer
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 9.306

9.  Informed consent to research in long-term care settings.

Authors:  Jennifer Hagerty Lingler; Rita A Jablonski; Meg Bourbonniere; Ann Kolanowski
Journal:  Res Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 1.571

10.  The need for additional safeguards in the informed consent process in schizophrenia research.

Authors:  K K Anderson; S D Mukherjee
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.