Literature DB >> 8923623

Shared understandings for informed consent: the relevance of psychological research on the provision of information.

G Kent1.   

Abstract

The achievement of informed consent from patients and potential research participants is considered a basic requirement in clinical care and clinical research, but ethicists have paid little attention to the psychological processes and social factors involved in sharing information between individuals. Although many studies on consent have provided useful results, they are rarely informed by basic research in the social sciences. As a result, there are a large number of methodological and conceptual issues which have not been adequately addressed. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the work of cognitive and social psychologists can provide insights that are both relevant and valuable to the process of attaining consent. Research in these areas within psychology has indicated that there are important individual differences in how much information people require and that patients' current state of mind can affect estimates of probability, thus making analogue studies misleading. Collaboration between psychologists and ethicists would be of great value in identifying likely areas of mutual interest, particularly the choice of language in consent forms and information sheets, the design of consent forms, the amount of information provided, and the specification of risks and benefits.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8923623     DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(96)00173-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  8 in total

Review 1.  The promise of empirical research in the study of informed consent theory and practice.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Marie Caputo; Christopher Burant
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2004-03

2.  Difficulties in obtaining informed consent by psychiatrists, surgeons and obstetricians/gynaecologists.

Authors:  G Kent
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  1996-02

Review 3.  Ethical issues in the development of new agents.

Authors:  C K Daugherty
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.850

4.  Informing children and parents about research.

Authors:  A Dawson; S A Spencer
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.791

5.  Therapeutic optimism in the consent forms of phase 1 gene transfer trials: an empirical analysis.

Authors:  J Kimmelman; N Palmour
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 6.  Ethics of drug research in the pediatric intensive care unit.

Authors:  Niina Kleiber; Krista Tromp; Miriam G Mooij; Suzanne van de Vathorst; Dick Tibboel; Saskia N de Wildt
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.022

7.  Picking and Choosing Among Phase I Trials : A Qualitative Examination of How Healthy Volunteers Understand Study Risks.

Authors:  Jill A Fisher; Torin Monahan; Rebecca L Walker
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 1.352

8.  A systematic review of risk communication in clinical trials: How does it influence decisions to participate and what are the best methods to improve understanding in a trial context?

Authors:  Maeve Coyle; Katie Gillies
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.