Recruitment Techniques Used for Clinical Trials and the Potential Impact of Nudges: Qualitative Interview Study with Recruiters.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Molly Volkmar, Jewels Watts, Lauren Kaiser-Jackson, Ben Schwan, Cathy Wolfsfeld, Eric Kodish, Aaron J Goldenberg, Jessica Berg, Erin Rothwell, Maxwell Mehlman, Kimberly Kaphingst
{"title":"Recruitment Techniques Used for Clinical Trials and the Potential Impact of Nudges: Qualitative Interview Study with Recruiters.","authors":"Molly Volkmar, Jewels Watts, Lauren Kaiser-Jackson, Ben Schwan, Cathy Wolfsfeld, Eric Kodish, Aaron J Goldenberg, Jessica Berg, Erin Rothwell, Maxwell Mehlman, Kimberly Kaphingst","doi":"10.1177/15562646251341655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While clinical trials are essential to improving public health, little research has examined the range of recruitment techniques used or whether they involve behavioral nudges. Behavioral nudges have been defined as \"any aspect of the choice architecture [the manner in which options are presented] that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives\"; these may influence individuals' autonomy in deciding to participate. To investigate, the study team conducted 39 semi-structured interviews with clinical trial recruiters at two academic medical centers, asking about their recruitment techniques and any perceived ethical concerns. Through inductive qualitative analysis, five main themes emerged: impact of relationships (among recruiters, healthcare teams, and participants), financial compensation, community benefit, study risks and benefits, and personalized study information. The study then assessed whether these techniques were seen as nudges and explored their ethical implications for informed decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"15562646251341655"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251341655","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While clinical trials are essential to improving public health, little research has examined the range of recruitment techniques used or whether they involve behavioral nudges. Behavioral nudges have been defined as "any aspect of the choice architecture [the manner in which options are presented] that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives"; these may influence individuals' autonomy in deciding to participate. To investigate, the study team conducted 39 semi-structured interviews with clinical trial recruiters at two academic medical centers, asking about their recruitment techniques and any perceived ethical concerns. Through inductive qualitative analysis, five main themes emerged: impact of relationships (among recruiters, healthcare teams, and participants), financial compensation, community benefit, study risks and benefits, and personalized study information. The study then assessed whether these techniques were seen as nudges and explored their ethical implications for informed decision-making.

用于临床试验的招聘技术和轻推的潜在影响:招聘人员的定性访谈研究。
虽然临床试验对改善公众健康至关重要,但很少有研究调查所使用的招募技术的范围,或者它们是否涉及行为推动。行为推动被定义为“选择架构(选择呈现的方式)的任何方面,以可预测的方式改变人们的行为,而不禁止任何选择或显著改变他们的经济激励”;这些可能会影响个人决定参与的自主权。为了进行调查,研究小组对两个学术医疗中心的临床试验招聘人员进行了39次半结构化访谈,询问他们的招聘技巧和任何可感知的道德问题。通过归纳定性分析,出现了五个主要主题:关系的影响(招聘人员,医疗团队和参与者之间),经济补偿,社区利益,研究风险和收益,以及个性化的研究信息。然后,研究评估了这些技术是否被视为助推,并探讨了它们对知情决策的伦理影响。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
×
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