Literature DB >> 16269567

How to handle informed consent in longitudinal studies when participants have a limited understanding of the study.

G Helgesson1, J Ludvigsson, U Gustafsson Stolt.   

Abstract

Empirical findings from a Swedish longitudinal screening study show that many of the research subjects had a limited understanding of the study. Nevertheless they were satisfied with the understanding they had and found it sufficient for informed continued participation. Were they wrong? In this paper, it is argued that the kind of understanding that is morally required depends partly on the kind of understanding on which the research subjects want to base their decisions, and partly on what kind of knowledge they lack. Researchers must ensure that the information process is not flawed and that participants receive the information they want. To achieve this, new information efforts may be needed. Researchers must also ensure that research subjects have knowledge about aspects of importance to them. Lack of understanding may, however, be the result of conscious choices by research subjects to disregard some of the information because it is not important to them. Such choices should normally be respected.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Biomedical and Behavioral Research

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16269567      PMCID: PMC1734044          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.009274

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  9 in total

1.  Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability--towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw.

Authors:  Jacob Dahl Rendtorff
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2002

2.  Cruel choices: autonomy and critical care decision-making.

Authors:  Christopher Meyers
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.898

3.  Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects.

Authors:  S Joffe; E F Cook; P D Cleary; J W Clark; J C Weeks
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-01-17       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Information and informed consent in a longitudinal screening involving children: a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Ulrica Gustafsson Stolt; Gert Helgesson; Per-Erik Liss; Tommy Svensson; Johnny Ludvigsson
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.246

5.  Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective.

Authors:  C K Daugherty
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  The use and interpretation of commercial APC gene testing for familial adenomatous polyposis.

Authors:  F M Giardiello; J D Brensinger; G M Petersen; M C Luce; L M Hylind; J A Bacon; S V Booker; R D Parker; S R Hamilton
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1997-03-20       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Bioethical theory and practice in genetic screening for type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  U Gustafsson Stolt; J Ludvigsson; P E Liss; T Svensson
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2003

8.  Ideals of patient autonomy in clinical decision making: a study on the development of a scale to assess patients' and physicians' views.

Authors:  A M Stiggelbout; A C Molewijk; W Otten; D R M Timmermans; J H van Bockel; J Kievit
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  R F Brown; P N Butow; D G Butt; A R Moore; M H N Tattersall
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 4.634

  9 in total
  13 in total

1.  Parental views on informed consent for expanded newborn screening.

Authors:  Louise Moody; Kubra Choudhry
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Informed consent in community-based oral health research.

Authors:  Shenuka Singh
Journal:  J Forensic Odontostomatol       Date:  2014-11-30

3.  Psychometric properties of the Pediatric Testing Attitudes Scale-Diabetes (P-TAS-D) for parents of children undergoing predictive risk screening.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Darren Mays; Suzanne Bennett Johnson; Johnny Ludvigsson; Ulrica Swartling
Journal:  Pediatr Diabetes       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 4.866

4.  Survey of motivation to participate in a birth cohort.

Authors:  Midori Yamamoto; Misuzu Fujita; Chisato Mori; Akira Hata
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 3.172

5.  Participants' recall and understanding of genomic research and large-scale data sharing.

Authors:  Jill Oliver Robinson; Melody J Slashinski; Tao Wang; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  'Mirroring' the ethics of biobanking: what should we learn from the analysis of consent documents[corrected]?

Authors:  Jurate Serepkaite; Serepkaite Jurate; Zivile Valuckiene; Valuckiene Zivile; Eugenijus Gefenas; Gefenas Eugenijus
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Behavioral Science Research Informs Bioethical Issues in the Conduct of Large-Scale Studies of Children's Disease Risk.

Authors:  Kenneth P Tercyak; Ulrica Swartling; Darren Mays; Suzanne Bennett Johnson; Johnny Ludvigsson
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2013-01-01

8.  Physician-Researchers' Experiences of the Consent Process in the Sociocultural Context of a Developing Country.

Authors:  Aisha Y Malik
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2011-10-11

9.  Genetic research on rare familial disorders: consent and the blurred boundaries between clinical service and research.

Authors:  M Ponder; H Statham; N Hallowell; J A Moon; M Richards; F L Raymond
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Post-consent assessment of dental subjects' understanding of informed consent in oral health research in Nigeria.

Authors:  Olaniyi O Taiwo; Nancy Kass
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.