Understanding, Therapeutic Misconceptions and Perceptions, and Enrollment Decision-Making: A Pediatric Preventive Malaria Trial in Rural Tanzania.

IRB Pub Date : 2017-09-01
Rose Mwangi, Paul Ndebele, Ann Mongoven
{"title":"Understanding, Therapeutic Misconceptions and Perceptions, and Enrollment Decision-Making: A Pediatric Preventive Malaria Trial in Rural Tanzania.","authors":"Rose Mwangi,&nbsp;Paul Ndebele,&nbsp;Ann Mongoven","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study entailed conducting extensive qualitative interviews of mothers who had been invited to have their infants participate in the Kilimanjaro Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Infants (Kili IPTi) trial, designed to assess the efficacy of intermittent preventive malaria chemoprophylaxis for infants. Our study sought to explore whether there was a relationship between the mothers' understanding of the research and the decision to enroll their infants or to decline. Such empirical data is necessary to address widely voiced concerns that limited understanding of research or exploitive inducement may undermine informed consent among clinical trial recruits in developing countries. The most striking result of the study was that, in general, those who declined to have their children participate in the trial had a better understanding of the trial than those who agreed to have their children participate. Decliners were more likely to understand the experimental nature of the trial and were less likely to confuse research with treatment, the conceptual error often labeled \"therapeutic misconception.\" Notably, in the context of the Kili IPTi trial, perception of clinical benefit may have been an accurate perception rather than therapeutic misconception because ancillary clinical benefits were provided to research participants. Neither participants nor decliners cited \"altruistic\" reasons for their decisions, despite presumptions among some scholars that such reasons are ethically the most appropriate motivations for participation in clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IRB","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

This study entailed conducting extensive qualitative interviews of mothers who had been invited to have their infants participate in the Kilimanjaro Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Infants (Kili IPTi) trial, designed to assess the efficacy of intermittent preventive malaria chemoprophylaxis for infants. Our study sought to explore whether there was a relationship between the mothers' understanding of the research and the decision to enroll their infants or to decline. Such empirical data is necessary to address widely voiced concerns that limited understanding of research or exploitive inducement may undermine informed consent among clinical trial recruits in developing countries. The most striking result of the study was that, in general, those who declined to have their children participate in the trial had a better understanding of the trial than those who agreed to have their children participate. Decliners were more likely to understand the experimental nature of the trial and were less likely to confuse research with treatment, the conceptual error often labeled "therapeutic misconception." Notably, in the context of the Kili IPTi trial, perception of clinical benefit may have been an accurate perception rather than therapeutic misconception because ancillary clinical benefits were provided to research participants. Neither participants nor decliners cited "altruistic" reasons for their decisions, despite presumptions among some scholars that such reasons are ethically the most appropriate motivations for participation in clinical research.

理解,治疗误解和认知,和入组决策:坦桑尼亚农村儿童预防疟疾试验。
这项研究需要对受邀让婴儿参加乞力马扎罗山婴儿疟疾间歇预防性治疗(Kili IPTi)试验的母亲进行广泛的定性访谈,该试验旨在评估婴儿间歇性预防性疟疾化学预防的疗效。我们的研究试图探索母亲对研究的理解与决定是否让婴儿注册或拒绝注册之间是否存在关系。这些经验数据对于解决广泛表达的担忧是必要的,即对研究的有限理解或剥削性诱导可能会破坏发展中国家临床试验招募者的知情同意。这项研究最惊人的结果是,一般来说,那些拒绝让孩子参加试验的人比那些同意让孩子参加试验的人对试验有更好的理解。衰退者更有可能理解试验的实验性质,不太可能将研究与治疗混淆,这种概念上的错误通常被称为“治疗误解”。值得注意的是,在Kili IPTi试验的背景下,对临床益处的感知可能是准确的感知,而不是治疗上的误解,因为研究参与者获得了辅助临床益处。参与者和衰退者都没有引用“利他主义”的理由来解释他们的决定,尽管一些学者认为这种理由在伦理上是参与临床研究最合适的动机。
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
IRB
IRB
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