Literature DB >> 12538203

The influence of protocol pain and risk on patients' willingness to consent for clinical studies: a randomized trial.

Tanja A Treschan1, Thomas Scheck, Alexander Kober, Edith Fleischmann, Beatrice Birkenberg, Brigitte Petschnigg, Ozan Akça, Franz X Lackner, Elisabeth Jandl-Jager, Daniel I Sessler.   

Abstract

We tested the hypothesis that the risk or discomfort associated with a clinical trial influence patients' decisions to participate. Simultaneously, we evaluated factors likely to influence patients' decisions such as understanding of the risk and discomfort associated with the study, patient age, educational level, and psychological status. With IRB approval, participants, who believed they were being asked to participate in a real trial, were presented one of three sham protocols: no risk or pain (Control, n = 48), pain but no risk (Pain, n = 51), or risk but no pain (Risk, n = 51). Patients were debriefed at the end of the interview. Our major outcome measures were (a) understanding risk or pain associated with the proposed studies, (b) the extent to which patients felt pressured to participate, and (c) willingness to participate. Whereas understanding was similar in all groups (Control, 68%; Pain, 67%; and Risk, 72%), willingness to participate differed significantly (Control, 64%; Pain, 35%; Risk, 26%; P < 0.001). Patients who understood the level of risk or pain associated with the protocols were twice as likely to participate than those who did not (49% versus 24%; P = 0.003). Nine percent agreed to participate in the risky or painful protocols without understanding the risks involved. Patients who felt pressured did not agree to participate. Thus, the consent process protected patients, although for unexpected reasons. Understanding was poor, but patients who did not understand the risks or pain involved or who felt pressured rarely consented. Consequently, relatively few patients unknowingly agreed to participate in risky or painful studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12538203     DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200302000-00037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  7 in total

1.  A description of the process of recruitment for research studies investigating the genetics of psychotic illness.

Authors:  Kimberly K Mathos; Raquel E Gur; Fran Lokar; Monica E Calkins; Vishwajit Nimgaonkar
Journal:  Curr Psychiatry Rep       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.285

2.  Interest in Research Participation Among Caregivers of Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders.

Authors:  L Kalb; L Jacobson; C Zisman; E Mahone; R Landa; G Azad; D Menon; V Singh; A Zabel; A Pritchard
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2019-09

Review 3.  Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan Cook; Cynthia Fraser; Elizabeth Mitchell; Frank Sullivan; Catherine Jackson; Tyna K Taskila; Heidi Gardner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-02-22

4.  Impact of residual risk messaging to reduce false reassurance following test-negative results from asymptomatic coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing: an online experimental study of a hypothetical test.

Authors:  Eleonore Batteux; Stefanie Bonfield; Leah Ffion Jones; Holly Carter; Natalie Gold; Richard Amlot; Theresa Marteau; Dale Weston
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Pauline Lockhart; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Kjeldstrøm; Marit Johansen; Taina K Taskila; Frank M Sullivan; Sue Wilson; Catherine Jackson; Ritu Jones; Elizabeth D Mitchell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Factors associated with patient willingness to participate in anaesthesia clinical trials: a vignette-based cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Caroline Noirmain; Béatrice Gil-Wey; Isabelle Pichon; Pauline Brindel; Guy Haller
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context?

Authors:  Maeve Coyle; Katie Gillies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.