Christian M Simon1, Laura A Siminoff, Eric D Kodish, Christopher Burant. 1. Department of Bioethics and Rainbow Center for Pediatric Ethics, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, OH 44106, USA. cxs66@po.cwru.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the informed consent processes for phase III pediatric and adult oncology clinical trials in view of the critical importance of human subjects protection in both pediatric and adult cancer care. Findings are discussed in terms of the opportunities for improving pediatric and adult oncology informed consent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 219 subjects are reported on. Adult oncology patients made up 36.1% (n = 79) of the sample. Pediatric surrogates made up the remaining 63.9% (n = 140). Subjects in both studies were observed and audiotaped in conversation with their oncologists, and interviewed afterwards. Comparisons between the adult and pediatric subjects were done using chi(2) statistics and t tests. RESULTS: Differences between the pediatric and adult informed consent processes were found. Adult oncology decision makers were, on average, more fully informed and more actively engaged by their oncologists. Pediatric decision makers were, however, given more information about survival/cure, randomization, and voluntariness. Comprehension difficulties were more frequent among pediatric decision makers. Suggestions for improvement are made in view of the differences between adult and pediatric oncology research environments. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts to improve the ethical framework of clinical cancer research need to take into account the key differences between pediatric and adult oncology informed consent. More research needs to be done to explore the differences between adult and pediatric informed consent processes in oncology.
PURPOSE: To compare the informed consent processes for phase III pediatric and adult oncology clinical trials in view of the critical importance of human subjects protection in both pediatric and adult cancer care. Findings are discussed in terms of the opportunities for improving pediatric and adult oncology informed consent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 219 subjects are reported on. Adult oncology patients made up 36.1% (n = 79) of the sample. Pediatric surrogates made up the remaining 63.9% (n = 140). Subjects in both studies were observed and audiotaped in conversation with their oncologists, and interviewed afterwards. Comparisons between the adult and pediatric subjects were done using chi(2) statistics and t tests. RESULTS: Differences between the pediatric and adult informed consent processes were found. Adult oncology decision makers were, on average, more fully informed and more actively engaged by their oncologists. Pediatric decision makers were, however, given more information about survival/cure, randomization, and voluntariness. Comprehension difficulties were more frequent among pediatric decision makers. Suggestions for improvement are made in view of the differences between adult and pediatric oncology research environments. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts to improve the ethical framework of clinical cancer research need to take into account the key differences between pediatric and adult oncology informed consent. More research needs to be done to explore the differences between adult and pediatric informed consent processes in oncology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Babette Brumback; Janice L Krieger; Kenneth W Goodman; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Laura A Siminoff; Heather L Rogers; Allison C Waller; Sonja Harris-Haywood; Ronald M Esptein; Francesc Borrell Carrio; Gayle Gliva-McConvey; Daniel R Longo Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-03
Authors: Conrad V Fernandez; Kathleen Ruccione; Robert J Wells; Jay B Long; Wendy Pelletier; Mary C Hooke; Rebecca D Pentz; Robert B Noll; Justin N Baker; Maura O'Leary; Gregory Reaman; Peter C Adamson; Steven Joffe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lamia P Barakat; Lisa A Schwartz; Anne Reilly; Janet A Deatrick; Frank Balis Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Lamia P Barakat; Evelyn Stevens; Yimei Li; Anne Reilly; Janet A Deatrick; Naomi E Goldstein; Lisa A Schwartz Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 2.223