S B Bavdekar1. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India. sandeep.bavdekar@gmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research carries a small but definite risk of injury to participants. However, there is no unanimity amongst the stakeholders regarding the nature and extent of compensation to be provided to an injured participant. AIMS: To determine the extent to which issues related to the provision of free treatment and compensation for research-related injury are addressed in the protocols submitted to Ethics Committees (ECs). SETTING AND DESIGN: Retrospective review of protocols submitted to two ECs in India. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Initial protocols submitted to two ECs during the calendar years 2007 and 2008 were reviewed. Statements related to treatment and compensations for study-related injury were studied for adequacy regarding provisions for free emergency treatment, and free treatment and compensation for research-related injury. Presence of special conditions, exclusions, and caveats, if any, were noted. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The proportion of protocols providing free treatment and compensation for research-related injury was presented as a percentage. RESULTS: The Informed Consent Documents (ICD) of 138 protocols were accessed. These included 115 (83.33%) industry-sponsored, 20 (14.49%) government-sponsored and three (2.17%) investigator-initiated projects. Forty-six (33.33%) intended to provide free treatment for a trial-related injury. Forty-two (30.43%) projects did not have any policy about providing treatment for a trial-related injury, whereas several others included statements that intended to provide treatment, but with certain restrictions. Thirty-three (23.91%) ICDs had statements indicating that there was no provision for compensation and 65(47.10%) ICDs stated nothing on the issue. CONCLUSION: ICDs submitted for initial review are not in conformity with the provisions for treatment of and compensation for research-related injuries enunciated in national guidelines and draft guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Research carries a small but definite risk of injury to participants. However, there is no unanimity amongst the stakeholders regarding the nature and extent of compensation to be provided to an injured participant. AIMS: To determine the extent to which issues related to the provision of free treatment and compensation for research-related injury are addressed in the protocols submitted to Ethics Committees (ECs). SETTING AND DESIGN: Retrospective review of protocols submitted to two ECs in India. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Initial protocols submitted to two ECs during the calendar years 2007 and 2008 were reviewed. Statements related to treatment and compensations for study-related injury were studied for adequacy regarding provisions for free emergency treatment, and free treatment and compensation for research-related injury. Presence of special conditions, exclusions, and caveats, if any, were noted. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The proportion of protocols providing free treatment and compensation for research-related injury was presented as a percentage. RESULTS: The Informed Consent Documents (ICD) of 138 protocols were accessed. These included 115 (83.33%) industry-sponsored, 20 (14.49%) government-sponsored and three (2.17%) investigator-initiated projects. Forty-six (33.33%) intended to provide free treatment for a trial-related injury. Forty-two (30.43%) projects did not have any policy about providing treatment for a trial-related injury, whereas several others included statements that intended to provide treatment, but with certain restrictions. Thirty-three (23.91%) ICDs had statements indicating that there was no provision for compensation and 65(47.10%) ICDs stated nothing on the issue. CONCLUSION: ICDs submitted for initial review are not in conformity with the provisions for treatment of and compensation for research-related injuries enunciated in national guidelines and draft guidelines.
Authors: Sangeetha Paramasivan; Philippa Davies; Alison Richards; Julia Wade; Leila Rooshenas; Nicola Mills; Alba Realpe; Jeffrey Pradeep Raj; Supriya Subramani; Jonathan Ives; Richard Huxtable; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-05
Authors: Kamal S Saini; Gaurav Agarwal; Ramesh Jagannathan; Otto Metzger-Filho; Monika L Saini; Khurshid Mistry; Raghib Ali; Sudeep Gupta Journal: South Asian J Cancer Date: 2013-01