M Eijkholt1, B K Kwon, J Illes. 1. Canada Research Chair in Neuroethics, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Coulmbia, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Risks have been a central concern in stem cell research overall, and in clinical trials of individuals with spinal cord injury (ISCIs) in particular. We sought to elucidate how two important stakeholder groups-health-care professionals (HCPs) and ISCIs-view and value both the physical and non-physical risks of stem cell interventions. SETTING: The study was conducted in Canada, and included participants from both Canada and the United States America. STUDY DESIGN: We used semi-structured interviews to gain perspectives on risk from HCPs and ISCIs. METHODS: We applied a constant comparative analytic strategy to derive themes from the discourse collected through the interviews. RESULTS: We identified three major themes about risk from 12 HCP and 24 ISCI participants: focus, rationale and approach. The salient components of the themes differed: HCPs focus on the physical causes of risks, and the ISCIs on their downstream consequences as well as on non-physical risks; HCPs are concerned about evidence, and ISCIs about experience; and HCPs approach risk narrowly, whereas the approach of ISCIs is more broad and contextualized. CONCLUSION: Although major themes were common to the two stakeholder groups, the components of the themes were dissociable and illustrate differences in what HCPs and ISCIs worry about, why they worry and how they approach their worries. We draw upon these findings to make recommendations for improving risk communication and informed consent for stem cell research for spinal cord injury.
OBJECTIVE: Risks have been a central concern in stem cell research overall, and in clinical trials of individuals with spinal cord injury (ISCIs) in particular. We sought to elucidate how two important stakeholder groups-health-care professionals (HCPs) and ISCIs-view and value both the physical and non-physical risks of stem cell interventions. SETTING: The study was conducted in Canada, and included participants from both Canada and the United States America. STUDY DESIGN: We used semi-structured interviews to gain perspectives on risk from HCPs and ISCIs. METHODS: We applied a constant comparative analytic strategy to derive themes from the discourse collected through the interviews. RESULTS: We identified three major themes about risk from 12 HCP and 24 ISCI participants: focus, rationale and approach. The salient components of the themes differed: HCPs focus on the physical causes of risks, and the ISCIs on their downstream consequences as well as on non-physical risks; HCPs are concerned about evidence, and ISCIs about experience; and HCPs approach risk narrowly, whereas the approach of ISCIs is more broad and contextualized. CONCLUSION: Although major themes were common to the two stakeholder groups, the components of the themes were dissociable and illustrate differences in what HCPs and ISCIs worry about, why they worry and how they approach their worries. We draw upon these findings to make recommendations for improving risk communication and informed consent for stem cell research for spinal cord injury.
Authors: Andrew R Blight; Jane Hsieh; Armin Curt; James W Fawcett; James D Guest; Naomi Kleitman; Shekar N Kurpad; Brian K Kwon; Daniel P Lammertse; Norbert Weidner; John D Steeves Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Patrick J McDonald; Viorica Hrincu; Mary B Connolly; Mark J Harrison; George M Ibrahim; Robert P Naftel; Winston Chiong; Farhad Udwadia; Judy Illes Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 1.987