首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Medical Ethics >Offering patients entry in clinical trials: preliminary study of the views of prospective participants.
【2h】

Offering patients entry in clinical trials: preliminary study of the views of prospective participants.

机译:为患者提供临床试验入场:对潜在参与者观点的初步研究。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain attitudes to different methods of obtaining informed consent for randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Structured interviews with members of the public, medical secretaries and medical students. SETTING: The public were approached in a variety of public places. Medical secretaries and students were approached in their place of work. SUBJECTS: Fifty members of the public, 25 secretaries and 25 students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Views on RCTs were elicited, with particular emphasis on how subjects thought the concept of randomisation should be explained. Each participant was presented with descriptions of proposed clinical trials and asked to select his or her preference from a range of options. RESULTS: Written information was preferred over verbal information in 91% of replies. Most respondents (86%) would prefer to sign a consent form. Of the seven statements explaining randomisation, a significant difference was found in favour of explanations that were less explicit about the play of chance (ANOVA; p = 0.0004). Eighty-three per cent of participants thought that randomised trials were morally acceptable when there was no prior medical preference between treatments. However, over half (55%) thought they would find it upsetting to be offered entry in such a trial and a quarter thought the outcome of treatment might be adversely affected. CONCLUSIONS: Our results offer some support for the idea that "economy with truth" is less unsettling than a frank description of the stark reality of what randomisation means. It is a matter of debate as to whether, if we are correct, autonomy should have precedence over beneficence. The offer of entry in a clinical trial is likely to affect the experience of care for many people, especially if the process of randomisation is described explicitly. Potential participants should be given a detailed written explanation of the rationale for the trial and be asked to sign a consent form if they agree to take part.
机译:目的:确定对随机临床试验(RCT)获得知情同意的不同方法的态度。设计:对公众,医学秘书和医学生进行结构化访谈。地点:在各种公共场所与公众接触。接见了医疗秘书和学生的工作地点。主题:五十名公众成员,25名秘书和25名学生。主要观察指标:引起了对随机对照试验的观点,特别强调受试者如何解释随机化的概念。向每位参与者介绍了拟议的临床试验的描述,并要求他们从一系列选项中选择自己的偏好。结果:在91%的答复中,书面信息胜于言语信息。大多数受访者(86%)希望签署同意书。在解释随机化的七个陈述中,发现存在显着差异,而对机会游戏的解释较为不明确(ANOVA; p = 0.0004)。 83%的参与者认为,在治疗之间没有先前的医学偏好时,随机试验在道德上是可以接受的。但是,超过一半(55%)的人认为他们会在这样的试验中感到沮丧,而四分之一的人则认为治疗结果可能受到不利影响。结论:我们的结果为“经济与真相”比坦率地描述随机化含义的真实性提供了更少的支持。如果我们是正确的,自治是否应该优先于慈善,这是一个辩论问题。进入临床试验的提议可能会影响许多人的护理体验,尤其是在明确描述随机过程的情况下。应该给潜在的参与者详细的试验理由书面说明,如果同意参加,则要求他们签署同意书。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号