Helen R Fisher1, Christopher McKevitt, Annette Boaz. 1. King’s College London, MRC & Asthma U.K. Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. helen.r.fisher@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent legislation mandating the inclusion of children in clinical trials has resulted in an increase in the number of children participating in research. We reviewed the literature regarding the reasons parents chose to accept or decline an invitation to enroll their children in clinical research. METHODS: We searched for qualitative studies, written in the English language that considered the experiences of parents who had been invited to enrol their children in research. SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge electronic databases and reference lists of retrieved articles and review papers were searched. Retrieved articles were synthesised using the narrative synthesis method. RESULTS: 16 qualitative studies exploring the experiences of parents living in five countries whose children had a range of health conditions of varying severity were included. The health status of the child appeared to influence parents' reasons for participation. Parents whose children had life threatening conditions often considered they had no choice but to participate and many welcomed the innovation offered through research participation. Such parents also viewed the risks of research less negatively than those whose children were healthy or in the stable stage of a chronic condition. This raises questions regarding the voluntariness of informed consent by such parents. CONCLUSIONS: A tailored approach is needed when discussing research participation with parents of eligible children. While parents of healthy children may be more open to discussions of altruism, those whose children have life threatening illnesses should be given adequate information about the alternatives to, and risks of, research participation.
OBJECTIVE: Recent legislation mandating the inclusion of children in clinical trials has resulted in an increase in the number of children participating in research. We reviewed the literature regarding the reasons parents chose to accept or decline an invitation to enroll their children in clinical research. METHODS: We searched for qualitative studies, written in the English language that considered the experiences of parents who had been invited to enrol their children in research. SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge electronic databases and reference lists of retrieved articles and review papers were searched. Retrieved articles were synthesised using the narrative synthesis method. RESULTS: 16 qualitative studies exploring the experiences of parents living in five countries whose children had a range of health conditions of varying severity were included. The health status of the child appeared to influence parents' reasons for participation. Parents whose children had life threatening conditions often considered they had no choice but to participate and many welcomed the innovation offered through research participation. Such parents also viewed the risks of research less negatively than those whose children were healthy or in the stable stage of a chronic condition. This raises questions regarding the voluntariness of informed consent by such parents. CONCLUSIONS: A tailored approach is needed when discussing research participation with parents of eligible children. While parents of healthy children may be more open to discussions of altruism, those whose children have life threatening illnesses should be given adequate information about the alternatives to, and risks of, research participation.
Authors: Ran D Goldman; Georg Staubli; Cristina Parra Cotanda; Julie C Brown; Julia Hoeffe; Michelle Seiler; Renana Gelernter; Jeanine E Hall; Mark A Griffiths; Adrienne L Davis; Sergio Manzano; Ahmed Mater; Sara Ahmed; David Sheridan; Matt Hansen; Samina Ali; Graham C Thompson; Naoki Shimizu; Eileen J Klein Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Lori Wiener; Adrienne Viola; Benjamin S Wilfond; David Wendler; Christine Grady Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Alejandro Hoberman; Nader Shaikh; Sonika Bhatnagar; Mary Ann Haralam; Diana H Kearney; D Kathleen Colborn; Michelle L Kienholz; Li Wang; Clareann H Bunker; Ron Keren; Myra A Carpenter; Saul P Greenfield; Hans G Pohl; Ranjiv Mathews; Marva Moxey-Mims; Russell W Chesney Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Holly L Peay; Barbara B Biesecker; Benjamin S Wilfond; Jill Jarecki; Kendall L Umstead; Diana M Escolar; Aad Tibben Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Christopher McKevitt; Nina Fudge; Siobhan Crichton; Yannick Bejot; Benoît Daubail; Antonio Di Carlo; Patricia Fearon; Peter Kolominsky-Rabas; Anita Sheldenkar; Sophie Newbound; Charles D A Wolfe Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 3.377