随机对照试验招募的路径分析:系统评价结果的二次分析。

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Nicole Jochym, Lisa Y Lin, Jon F Merz
{"title":"随机对照试验招募的路径分析:系统评价结果的二次分析。","authors":"Nicole Jochym,&nbsp;Lisa Y Lin,&nbsp;Jon F Merz","doi":"10.1177/15562646211023698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examine recruitment processes for 71 pragmatic and comparative effectiveness trials identified in a systematic review, using path analysis to examine rates of refusal to screen, test, and consent to trial participation. Our analysis suggests that refusal rates might be on net slightly higher if potential subjects are screened or asked to undergo physical eligibility tests, but this was not significant in our sample of trials (<i>p</i> = .11 by Mann-Whitney test). We find that rates of refusing to provide informed consent are much lower for trials in which subjects have agreed to screening or testing (odds ratio = 0.40, Wilcoxon rank-sum <i>z</i> = 2.67, <i>p</i> = .008). We also observe that the overwhelming majority of trials examined secured consent after determining eligibility, even in trials involving screening or testing activities. The ethical implications and areas for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"16 4","pages":"418-423"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15562646211023698","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Path Analysis of RCT Recruitment: Secondary Analysis of Results from a Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Jochym,&nbsp;Lisa Y Lin,&nbsp;Jon F Merz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646211023698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We examine recruitment processes for 71 pragmatic and comparative effectiveness trials identified in a systematic review, using path analysis to examine rates of refusal to screen, test, and consent to trial participation. Our analysis suggests that refusal rates might be on net slightly higher if potential subjects are screened or asked to undergo physical eligibility tests, but this was not significant in our sample of trials (<i>p</i> = .11 by Mann-Whitney test). We find that rates of refusing to provide informed consent are much lower for trials in which subjects have agreed to screening or testing (odds ratio = 0.40, Wilcoxon rank-sum <i>z</i> = 2.67, <i>p</i> = .008). We also observe that the overwhelming majority of trials examined secured consent after determining eligibility, even in trials involving screening or testing activities. The ethical implications and areas for future research are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"16 4\",\"pages\":\"418-423\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15562646211023698\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211023698\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/6/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211023698","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们检查了系统评价中确定的71项实用和比较有效性试验的招募过程,使用通径分析来检查拒绝筛选、测试和同意参加试验的比率。我们的分析表明,如果对潜在的受试者进行筛选或要求进行身体资格测试,拒绝率可能会略高,但这在我们的试验样本中并不显著(p =)。曼-惠特尼试验)。我们发现,在受试者同意筛查或测试的试验中,拒绝提供知情同意的比率要低得多(优势比= 0.40,Wilcoxon秩和z = 2.67, p = 0.008)。我们还观察到,即使在涉及筛选或测试活动的试验中,绝大多数试验在确定资格后审查了获得同意的情况。讨论了未来研究的伦理意义和领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Path Analysis of RCT Recruitment: Secondary Analysis of Results from a Systematic Review.

We examine recruitment processes for 71 pragmatic and comparative effectiveness trials identified in a systematic review, using path analysis to examine rates of refusal to screen, test, and consent to trial participation. Our analysis suggests that refusal rates might be on net slightly higher if potential subjects are screened or asked to undergo physical eligibility tests, but this was not significant in our sample of trials (p = .11 by Mann-Whitney test). We find that rates of refusing to provide informed consent are much lower for trials in which subjects have agreed to screening or testing (odds ratio = 0.40, Wilcoxon rank-sum z = 2.67, p = .008). We also observe that the overwhelming majority of trials examined secured consent after determining eligibility, even in trials involving screening or testing activities. The ethical implications and areas for future research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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