Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (III) – How is the research participant’s understanding currently checked and how might we improve this process?

Hugh T Davies, S. Kolstoe, Anthony Lockett
{"title":"Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (III) – How is the research participant’s understanding currently checked and how might we improve this process?","authors":"Hugh T Davies, S. Kolstoe, Anthony Lockett","doi":"10.1177/17470161241235910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals ( n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written material. We propose ways this interactive conversation can be documented, and the process of checking understanding improved.","PeriodicalId":510000,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161241235910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals ( n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written material. We propose ways this interactive conversation can be documented, and the process of checking understanding improved.
重塑 "同意",我们可以改进参与者的选择(III)--目前如何检查研究参与者的理解,我们可以如何改进这一过程?
有效的同意要求潜在的研究参与者理解所提供的信息。我们研究了 50 项拟议的研究用医药产品临床试验的现行做法,以确定如何检查这种理解。大多数提议(n = 44)表示,确认理解将在研究者和潜在参与者之间的互动对话中进行,其中包含评估和确定理解的问题。然而,到目前为止,研究设计和审查还没有关注到这一点,而更多地集中在书面材料上。我们提出了记录这种互动对话的方法,并改进了确认理解的过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信