1 / 17

The ethical conduct of research with human participants

The ethical conduct of research with human participants. Nancy E. Kass, ScD Department of Health Policy and Management Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Five minute history of research ethics in the U.S. Nuremberg Code Declaration of Helsinki

evonne
Télécharger la présentation

The ethical conduct of research with human participants

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The ethical conduct of research with human participants Nancy E. Kass, ScD Department of Health Policy and Management Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics

  2. Five minute history of research ethics in the U.S. Nuremberg Code Declaration of Helsinki Public becomes more aware of potential research ethics problems in U.S. funded/conducted studies Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Henry Beecher 1966 NEJM article Tuskegee study Tuskegee Ad Hoc panel convened 1972

  3. The National Commission and The Belmont Report • 1974-1978: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Behavioral and Biomedical Research • produced Belmont Report , which defined principles for ethical research • Beneficence • Respect for persons • Justice

  4. Three principles of bioethics (from The Belmont Report) Beneficence: duty to protect the welfare of participants Respect for persons duty to respect autonomous persons, their choices, and their information Out of respect, duty to protect those less than fully autonomous Justice Duty to distribute benefits and burdens fairly

  5. How principles apply to research: beneficence Risks/benefits: to individuals and communities Physical Psychological Social Considerations when assessing risk: Nature of risk Likelihood of risk Severity/magnitude of harm Permanence/reversibility of harm

  6. Study design often consideration of beneficence Valid design? Valid findings? If not, no benefit Sufficient sample size? Is randomization appropriate? Are placebos appropriate? Surrogate markers vs. clinical endpoints? Often can change design to reduce risk

  7. Respect for persons Requires we go through informed consent process Requires we provide additional protection for persons who cannot consent themselves Requires we respect privacy and maintain confidentiality

  8. Elements of informed consent Disclosure Understanding Voluntariness Capacity (competence)

  9. Evidence and consent forms Average reading level >8th grade (numerous studies) 65 approved forms: avg. 15th grade (Hammerschmidt and Keane 1992) Ann Landers columns avg 7.7 grade Reader’s Digest avg 9.95 grade readability IRB review never improved by >1 grade level IRBs’ own boilerplate often >8th grade (Paasche-Orlow et al 2003)

  10. Participant Understanding: US data Appelbaum: “therapeutic misconception” 69% didn’t know how random assignment had been made 32% thought they were in group best for therapeutic needs 44% did not know some patients who wanted tx would not get it 39% did not understand MD would not know which tx they received Riecken and Ravich 28% didn’t know they were in study, despite having just signed consent form

  11. Interventions to consent forms can improve understanding Shortening form (Epstein 1969) Overall comprehension: 67% vs. 35% Lowering readability level (Young 1990) Purpose: 77% vs. 44%; Side effects: 72% vs. 58% More sections, headings, lay language (Bjorn 1999) Randomization: 26% vs. 42% Corrected feedback or verbalization Quiz and correct wrong answers (Taub 1984) Verbalization of surgical risks (Wadey 1997)

  12. Justice Fair selection of individuals Fair selection of populations Opposite is exploitation

  13. Justice relevant on many levels Overall research portfolio What diseases do we study? Who gets them? How many people? Which groups? Fair distribution of who benefits from overall research? Which population do we pick for individual studies? Is study particularly relevant to THEM? If not, is there a fair distribution/broad inclusion? What happens after study is over? Access to successful intervention? Does fairness require this?

  14. U.S. regulations (The Common Rule) • Passed in Congress in 1974 • Additional subparts added later: pregnant women/fetuses; prisoners; children • Created IRB requirement • Institutions mustreview all federally funded human research (or all human research, depending on institution’s policy) • Review happens locally, at institution, not at central or national level • Independent committee • at investigator’s institution • at participants’ institution (“performance site”)

  15. U.S. regulations IRB must review studies for adherence to ethics principles, including: Review risk/benefit; risks minimized Review consent elements/procedures and documentation Review proper selection of subjects 1991: adopted by 17 US federal agencies as “Common Rule”

  16. Investigators’ responsibilities Think through ethics issues for your project – minimize harms, choose populations fairly, develop respectful procedures Submit protocol to IRB, submit annual reviews to IRB, submit changes to IRB, submit adverse or unanticipated events to IRB Maintain records (with IRB, with subjects) Honesty and integrity as an investigator

  17. Regulations and ethics You must follow regulations You must be thoughtful about the ethics of your studies If you’re lucky, these will happen at the same time

More Related