BACKGROUND: Biomedical HIV prevention research with minors is complicated by the requirement of parental consent, which may disclose sensitive information to parents. We examine the experience of principal investigators (PIs) and study personnel who faced this complex ethical issue in the first biomedical HIV prevention study that allowed minors to self-consent for enrollment. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with PIs and study personnel from 13 medical trial sites in cities across the United States. Data were analyzed using a conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Participants experienced moral conflict as they struggled to fulfill conflicting duties in this trial involving minor adolescents with multiple vulnerabilities. Our participants experienced conflict between the two types of duties-protective and scientific-previously identified by Merritt. Protective duties were owed to the child, the parents, and the institution, and participants expressed tension between the actions that would protect these subgroups and the actions necessary to fulfill their scientific duties. CONCLUSIONS: Moral conflict was resolved in a variety of ways, including reflecting on the protocol's alignment with federal regulations, modifying consent language, considering each individual for enrollment carefully, and accepting institutional review board (IRB) decisions. Potential solutions for future studies are discussed, and include flexible protocol consent procedures and centralized IRB reviews.
BACKGROUND: Biomedical HIV prevention research with minors is complicated by the requirement of parental consent, which may disclose sensitive information to parents. We examine the experience of principal investigators (PIs) and study personnel who faced this complex ethical issue in the first biomedical HIV prevention study that allowed minors to self-consent for enrollment. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with PIs and study personnel from 13 medical trial sites in cities across the United States. Data were analyzed using a conventional content analysis. RESULTS:Participants experienced moral conflict as they struggled to fulfill conflicting duties in this trial involving minor adolescents with multiple vulnerabilities. Our participants experienced conflict between the two types of duties-protective and scientific-previously identified by Merritt. Protective duties were owed to the child, the parents, and the institution, and participants expressed tension between the actions that would protect these subgroups and the actions necessary to fulfill their scientific duties. CONCLUSIONS: Moral conflict was resolved in a variety of ways, including reflecting on the protocol's alignment with federal regulations, modifying consent language, considering each individual for enrollment carefully, and accepting institutional review board (IRB) decisions. Potential solutions for future studies are discussed, and include flexible protocol consent procedures and centralized IRB reviews.
Authors: Susan M Sawyer; Rima A Afifi; Linda H Bearinger; Sarah-Jayne Blakemore; Bruce Dick; Alex C Ezeh; George C Patton Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter L Anderson; David V Glidden; Albert Liu; Susan Buchbinder; Javier R Lama; Juan Vicente Guanira; Vanessa McMahan; Lane R Bushman; Martín Casapía; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Valdilea G Veloso; Kenneth H Mayer; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Esper Georges Kallás; Robert M Grant Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Amy Lewis Gilbert; Amelia S Knopf; J Dennis Fortenberry; Sybil G Hosek; Bill G Kapogiannis; Gregory D Zimet Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Jared M Baeten; Deborah Donnell; Patrick Ndase; Nelly R Mugo; James D Campbell; Jonathan Wangisi; Jordan W Tappero; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Craig R Cohen; Elly Katabira; Allan Ronald; Elioda Tumwesigye; Edwin Were; Kenneth H Fife; James Kiarie; Carey Farquhar; Grace John-Stewart; Aloysious Kakia; Josephine Odoyo; Akasiima Mucunguzi; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Rogers Twesigye; Kenneth Ngure; Cosmas Apaka; Harrison Tamooh; Fridah Gabona; Andrew Mujugira; Dana Panteleeff; Katherine K Thomas; Lara Kidoguchi; Meighan Krows; Jennifer Revall; Susan Morrison; Harald Haugen; Mira Emmanuel-Ogier; Lisa Ondrejcek; Robert W Coombs; Lisa Frenkel; Craig Hendrix; Namandjé N Bumpus; David Bangsberg; Jessica E Haberer; Wendy S Stevens; Jairam R Lingappa; Connie Celum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hillary B S Foulkes; Melinda M Pettigrew; Kara A Livingston; Linda M Niccolai Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Iwen F Grigsby; Lan Pham; Louis M Mansky; Raj Gopalakrishnan; Kim C Mansky Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Brian Mustanski; Kathryn Macapagal; Matthew Thomann; Brian A Feinstein; Michael E Newcomb; Darnell Motley; Celia B Fisher Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2017-09-05
Authors: Sybil G Hosek; Raphael J Landovitz; Bill Kapogiannis; George K Siberry; Bret Rudy; Brandy Rutledge; Nancy Liu; D Robert Harris; Kathleen Mulligan; Gregory Zimet; Kenneth H Mayer; Peter Anderson; Jennifer J Kiser; Michelle Lally; Jennifer Brothers; Kelly Bojan; Jim Rooney; Craig M Wilson Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Leslie Gailloud; Tatiana Gonzalez-Argoti; Sophia Philip; Lena S Josephs; Joanne E Mantell; Laurie J Bauman Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2022-01-27
Authors: Amelia Knopf; Claire Burke Draucker; J Dennis Fortenberry; Daniel H Reirden; Renata Arrington-Sanders; John Schneider; Diane Straub; Rebecca Baker; Giorgos Bakoyannis; Gregory D Zimet; Mary A Ott Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-03-30
Authors: Winnie Kavulani Luseno; Samuel H Field; Bonita J Iritani; Fredrick S Odongo; Daniel Kwaro; Stuart Rennie Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 3.390