Literature DB >> 24446941

Subversive subjects: rule-breaking and deception in clinical trials.

Rebecca Dresser1.   

Abstract

Research subjects do not always conform to research requirements. When their personal interests conflict with the demands of participation, some subjects surreptitiously break the rules. These subjects are subversive--they undermine the research endeavor. In rejecting the restrictions research imposes, subversive subjects diminish the value of research results. From one vantage point, subversive subjects engage in unethical behavior. They create risks to themselves and others; they also disregard ethical responsibilities to adhere to research agreements and tell the truth. At the same time, subversive subjects expose ethical problems in the design and conduct of clinical trials. Features of the research environment create fertile ground for subject subversion. Intensified policing and guidance are two common strategies for reducing subject subversion, but collaborative reforms are more consistent with the partnership model of clinical research.
© 2013 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24446941      PMCID: PMC4520402          DOI: 10.1111/jlme.12093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Law Med Ethics        ISSN: 1073-1105            Impact factor:   1.718


  39 in total

1.  Adaptive clinical trials: a partial remedy for the therapeutic misconception?

Authors:  William J Meurer; Roger J Lewis; Donald A Berry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  FDA and pharma seek better ways to assess drug safety, efficacy in clinical trials.

Authors:  Mike Mitka
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Justice for injured research subjects.

Authors:  Carl Elliott
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Known versus unknown threats to internal validity: a response to Edwards.

Authors:  Stephen Rice; David Trafimow
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  "Through a glass darkly": researcher ethnocentrism and the demonization of research participants.

Authors:  John A Lynch
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 11.229

6.  Subverting randomization in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-11-08       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Participants' responsibilities in clinical research.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Elizabeth Ness
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  What is wrong with compliance?

Authors:  S Holm
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 9.  Designing medical and educational intervention studies. A review of some alternatives to conventional randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  C Bradley
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Research ethics. Aligning regulations and ethics in human research.

Authors:  Rebecca Dresser
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  17 in total

Review 1.  Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants.

Authors:  Chuen Peng Lee; Tyson Holmes; Eric Neri; Clete A Kushida
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events.

Authors:  Lisa McManus; Arlene Davis; Rebecca L Forcier; Jill A Fisher
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.718

3.  When Subjects Violate the Research Covenant: Lessons Learned from a Failed Clinical Trial of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation.

Authors:  Stacy A Kahn; David T Rubin
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Selecting the right tool for the job.

Authors:  Arthur L Caplan; Carolyn Plunkett; Bruce Levin
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Using "clinical trial diaries" to track patterns of participation for serial healthy volunteers in U.S. phase I studies.

Authors:  Heather B Edelblute; Jill A Fisher
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 6.  Detecting Deception in Our Research Participants: Are Your Participants Who You Think They Are?

Authors:  Mary E McCaul; Gary S Wand
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 3.455

7.  Safety, Science, or Both? Deceptive Healthy Volunteers: Psychiatric Conditions Uncovered by Objective Methods of Screening.

Authors:  Adriana Pavletic; Maryland Pao
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.386

8.  To report or not to report: Exploring healthy volunteers' rationales for disclosing adverse events in Phase I drug trials.

Authors:  Lisa McManus; Jill A Fisher
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun

9.  Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions of the Benefits of Their Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Jill A Fisher; Lisa McManus; Megan M Wood; Marci D Cottingham; Julianne M Kalbaugh; Torin Monahan; Rebecca L Walker
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  Exceptional Risk: Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions of HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Marci D Cottingham; Julianne M Kalbaugh; Teresa Swezey; Jill A Fisher
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 3.731

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.