Literature DB >> 22314796

Comparison of enrollees and decliners of Parkinson disease sham surgery trials.

Scott Y H Kim1, Renee M Wilson, H Myra Kim, Robert G Holloway, Raymond G De Vries, Samuel A Frank, Karl Kieburtz.   

Abstract

Concerns have been raised that persons with serious illnesses participating in high-risk research, such as PD patients in sham surgery trials, have unrealistic expectations and are vulnerable to exploitation. A comparison of enrollees and decliners of such research may provide insights about the adequacy of decision making by potential subjects. We compared 61 enrollees and 10 decliners of two phase II neurosurgical intervention (i.e., cellular and gene transfer) trials for PD regarding their demographic and clinical status, perceptions and attitudes regarding research risks, potential direct benefit, and societal benefit, and perspectives on the various potential reasons for and against participation. In addition to bivariate analyses, a logistic regression model examined variables regarding risks and benefits as predictors of participation status. Enrollees perceived lower risk of harm while tolerating higher risk of harm and were more action oriented, but did not have more advanced disease. Both groups rated hope for benefit as a strong reason to participate, whereas the fact that the study's purpose was not solely to benefit them was rated as "not a reason" against participation. Hope for benefit and altruism were rated higher than expectation of benefit as reasons in favor of participation for both groups. Enrollees and decliners are different in their views and attitudes toward risk. Although both are attracted to research because of hopes of personal benefit, this hope is clearly distinguishable from an expectation of benefit and does not imply a failure to understand the main purpose of research.
Copyright © 2012 Movement Disorder Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22314796      PMCID: PMC3323770          DOI: 10.1002/mds.24940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mov Disord        ISSN: 0885-3185            Impact factor:   10.338


  11 in total

1.  The ethical problems with sham surgery in clinical research.

Authors:  R Macklin
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-09-23       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials.

Authors:  Gail E Henderson; Michele M Easter; Catherine Zimmer; Nancy M P King; Arlene M Davis; Barbra Bluestone Rothschild; Larry R Churchill; Benjamin S Wilfond; Daniel K Nelson
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2005-07-05       Impact factor: 4.634

3.  Gene delivery of AAV2-neurturin for Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  William J Marks; Raymond T Bartus; Joao Siffert; Charles S Davis; Andres Lozano; Nicholas Boulis; Jerrold Vitek; Mark Stacy; Dennis Turner; Leonard Verhagen; Roy Bakay; Raymond Watts; Barton Guthrie; Joseph Jankovic; Richard Simpson; Michele Tagliati; Ron Alterman; Matthew Stern; Gordon Baltuch; Philip A Starr; Paul S Larson; Jill L Ostrem; John Nutt; Karl Kieburtz; Jeffrey H Kordower; C Warren Olanow
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 44.182

4.  An approach to evaluating the therapeutic misconception.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Lauren Schrock; Renee M Wilson; Samuel A Frank; Robert G Holloway; Karl Kieburtz; Raymond G de Vries
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct

5.  Intrastriatal transplantation of microcarrier-bound human retinal pigment epithelial cells versus sham surgery in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Robert E Gross; Raymond L Watts; Robert A Hauser; Roy Ae Bakay; Heinz Reichmann; Rüdiger von Kummer; William G Ondo; Elke Reissig; Wilhelm Eisner; Heike Steiner-Schulze; Harald Siedentop; Klaus Fichte; Walter Hong; Michael Cornfeldt; Katherine Beebe; Rupert Sandbrink
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 44.182

Review 6.  Risk perception and communication.

Authors:  B Fischhoff; A Bostrom; M J Quadrel
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 21.981

7.  Unrealistic optimism in early-phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Lynn A Jansen; Paul S Appelbaum; William M P Klein; Neil D Weinstein; William Cook; Jessica S Fogel; Daniel P Sulmasy
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2011 Jan-Feb

8.  The culture of faith and hope: patients' justifications for their high estimations of expected therapeutic benefit when enrolling in early phase oncology trials.

Authors:  Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; M Kai He; Damon M Seils; Neal J Meropol; Ellyn Micco; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data.

Authors:  Manish Agrawal; Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Volunteering for early phase gene transfer research in Parkinson disease.

Authors:  S Y H Kim; R G Holloway; S Frank; C A Beck; C Zimmerman; R Wilson; K Kieburtz
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2006-03-15       Impact factor: 9.910

View more
  7 in total

1.  Are therapeutic motivation and having one's own doctor as researcher sources of therapeutic misconception?

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Raymond De Vries; Sonali Parnami; Renee Wilson; H Myra Kim; Samuel Frank; Robert G Holloway; Karl Kieburtz
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Elliott Mark Weiss; Katherine F Guttmann; Aleksandra E Olszewski; Brooke E Magnus; Sijia Li; Scott Y H Kim; Anita R Shah; Sandra E Juul; Yvonne W Wu; Kaashif A Ahmad; Ellen Bendel-Stenzel; Natalia A Isaza; Andrea L Lampland; Amit M Mathur; Rakesh Rao; David Riley; David G Russell; Zeynep N I Salih; Carrie B Torr; Joern-Hendrik Weitkamp; Uchenna E Anani; Taeun Chang; Juanita Dudley; John Flibotte; Erin M Havrilla; Alexandra C O'Kane; Krystle Perez; Brenda J Stanley; Seema K Shah; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2021-08-14       Impact factor: 4.406

3.  Sham surgery controls in Parkinson's disease clinical trials: views of participants.

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Raymond De Vries; Robert G Holloway; Renee Wilson; Sonali Parnami; H Myra Kim; Samuel Frank; Karl Kieburtz
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 10.338

4.  Promoting Disclosure and Understanding in Informed Consent: Optimizing the Impact of the Common Rule "Key Information" Requirement.

Authors:  Kathryn M Porter; Elliott M Weiss; Stephanie A Kraft
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2021-05       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Longitudinal study of informed consent in innovative therapy research: experience and provisional recommendations from a multicenter trial of intracerebral grafting.

Authors:  Laurent Cleret de Langavant; Sophie Sudraud; Christophe Verny; Pierre Krystkowiak; Clémence Simonin; Philippe Damier; Jean-François Demonet; Frédéric Supiot; Amandine Rialland; David Schmitz; Patrick Maison; Katia Youssov; Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Patient and clinician characteristics and preferences for increasing participation in placebo surgery trials: a scoping review of attributes to inform a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Madeleine Hinwood; Laura Wall; Danielle Lang; Zsolt J Balogh; Angela Smith; Michelle Dowsey; Phillip Clarke; Peter Choong; Samantha Bunzli; Francesco Paolucci
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Ethical Issues in Intraoperative Neuroscience Research: Assessing Subjects' Recall of Informed Consent and Motivations for Participation.

Authors:  Anna Wexler; Rebekah J Choi; Ashwin G Ramayya; Nikhil Sharma; Brendan J McShane; Love Y Buch; Melanie P Donley-Fletcher; Joshua I Gold; Gordon H Baltuch; Sara Goering; Eran Klein
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2021-07-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.