首页> 外文期刊>MDM Policy & Practice >The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review
【24h】

The Challenges of Informed Consent in High-Stakes, Randomized Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review

机译:在高赌注中获取知情同意,随机肿瘤试验的挑战:系统审查

获取原文
           

摘要

Importance. Oncology trials often entail high-stakes interventions where potential for morbidity and fatal side effects, and for life-prolongation or cure, intensify bioethical issues surrounding informed consent. These challenges are compounded in multistage randomized trials, which are prevalent in oncology. Objective. We sought to elucidate the major barriers to informed consent in high-stakes oncology trials in general and the best consent practices for multistage randomized trials. Evidence Review. We queried PubMed for original studies published from January 1, 1990, to April 5, 2018, that focused on readability, quality, complexity or length of consent documents, motivation and sickness level of participants, or interventions and enhancements that influence informed consent for high-stakes oncologic interventions. Exclusion criteria included articles focused on populations outside industrialized countries, minors or other vulnerable populations, physician preferences, cancer screening and prevention, or recruitment strategies. Additional articles were identified through comprehensive bibliographic review. Findings. Twenty-seven articles were retained; 19 enrolled participants and 8 examined samples of consent documents. Methodologic quality was variable. This body of literature identified certain challenges that can be readily remedied. For example, the average length of the consent forms has increased 10-fold from 1987 to 2010, and patient understanding was shown to be inversely proportional to page count; shortening forms, or providing a concise summary as mandated by the revised Common Rule, might help. However, barriers to understanding that stem from deeply ingrained and flawed sociocultural perceptions of medical research seem more difficult to surmount. Although no studies specifically addressed problems posed by multiple sequential randomizations (such as change in risk-benefit ratio due to time-varying treatment responses or organ toxicities), the findings are likely applicable and especially relevant in that context. Concrete suggestions for improvement are proposed.
机译:重要性。肿瘤学试验往往需要高赌注干预措施,其中发病率和致命副作用以及持续延长或治愈,加强了周围知情同意的生态问题。这些挑战在多级随机试验中复合,在肿瘤学中普遍存在。客观的。我们试图阐明在一般来说,在高赌注肿瘤学审判中获得知情同意的主要障碍,以及多级随机试验的最佳同意实践。证据审查。我们为2018年1月1日至2018年4月5日发布的原始研究查询了PubMed,它专注于参与者的可读性,质量,复杂性或同意文件,动机和疾病程度,或干预和改进,影响知情同意的高度 - 营造肿瘤学干预。排除标准包括专注于工业化国家外,未成年人或其他弱势群体,医生偏好,癌症筛查和预防或招聘策略的文章。通过综合书目审查确定了其他文章。发现。保留了二十七篇文章; 19名已注册的参与者和8次审查的同意文件样本。方法质量是可变的。这个文献的身体确定了可以容易地纠正的某些挑战。例如,同意表格的平均长度从1987年到2010年增加了10倍,并且患者理解被证明与页面数量成反比;缩短形式,或根据经修订的共同规则提供简明的摘要,可能会有所帮助。然而,理解源于深入根深蒂固和有缺陷的医学研究的障碍障碍似乎更加困难。虽然没有具体解决多种顺序随机性因子提出的问题(例如由于时变治疗反应或器官毒性导致的风险效益比的变化),但调查结果可能适用,特别是在这种情况下特别相关。提出了改进的具体建议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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