克服神经学研究中的知情同意障碍:来自全国调查的观点。

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
Research Ethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-10-30 DOI:10.1177/17470161221131497
Lauren R Sankary, Megan E Zelinsky, Paul J Ford, Eric C Blackstone, Robert J Fox
{"title":"克服神经学研究中的知情同意障碍:来自全国调查的观点。","authors":"Lauren R Sankary, Megan E Zelinsky, Paul J Ford, Eric C Blackstone, Robert J Fox","doi":"10.1177/17470161221131497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.</p>","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10609656/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren R Sankary, Megan E Zelinsky, Paul J Ford, Eric C Blackstone, Robert J Fox\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470161221131497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10609656/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221131497\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/10/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221131497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床研究中神经系统疾病参与者的伦理招募需要获得初步和持续的知情同意。本研究的目的是描述研究人员在获得患有神经系统疾病的研究参与者的知情同意时所面临的障碍,并确定研究人员为克服这些障碍而采取的策略。这项研究是对美国研究人员进行的一项基于网络的调查,并进行了可选的后续采访。使用分层有目的的抽样策略选择完成调查的参与者子集,并邀请他们通过电话或视频会议参加深入的定性访谈。数据分析采用混合方法,包括调查回复的内容分析和访谈回复的主题分析。在一年多的时间里,直接参与获得神经研究参与者知情同意的美国研究人员收到了113份调查回复。经常发现的知情同意障碍包括:认知和沟通障碍(如失语症)、对研究参与者不切实际的期望、对医学研究的不信任、时间限制、识字障碍、缺乏可用的社会支持以及实际或资源相关的限制。加强知情同意的战略包括:让亲密的其他人参与进来,支持参与者了解研究相关信息,与更有经验的研究人员合作,促进获得知情同意的培训,鼓励参与者在同意讨论之前审查同意书,以及使用印刷材料和视觉参考资料。除了传达研究相关信息外,本研究中的研究人员还认可了在对研究的误解、不切实际的期望、有限的理解、不信任和/或来自亲密他人的压力的情况下,支持知情同意所需审议的伦理责任。研究结果强调了在神经学研究中培训参与获得知情同意的研究人员的重要性,以应对特定疾病的挑战,并支持潜在研究参与者及其亲密他人的决策过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey.

Overcoming barriers to informed consent in neurological research: Perspectives from a national survey.

The ethical recruitment of participants with neurological disorders in clinical research requires obtaining initial and ongoing informed consent. The purpose of this study is to characterize barriers faced by research personnel in obtaining informed consent from research participants with neurological disorders and to identify strategies applied by researchers to overcome those barriers. This study was designed as a web-based survey of US researchers with an optional follow-up interview. A subset of participants who completed the survey were selected using a stratified purposeful sampling strategy and invited to participate in an in-depth qualitative interview by phone or video conference. Data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach, including content analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interview responses. Over 1 year, 113 survey responses were received from US research personnel directly involved in obtaining informed consent from participants in neurological research. Frequently identified barriers to informed consent included: cognitive and communication impairments (e.g. aphasia), unrealistic expectations of research participants, mistrust of medical research, time constraints, literacy barriers, lack of available social support, and practical or resource-related constraints. Strategies to enhance informed consent included: involving close others to support participant understanding of study-related information, collaborating with more experienced research personnel to facilitate training in obtaining informed consent, encouraging participants to review consent forms in advance of consent discussions, and using printed materials and visual references. Beyond conveying study-related information, researchers included in this study endorsed ethical responsibilities to support deliberation necessary to informed consent in the context of misconceptions about research, unrealistic expectations, limited understanding, mistrust, and/or pressure from close others. Findings highlight the importance of training researchers involved in obtaining informed consent in neurological research to address disease-specific challenges and to support the decision-making processes of potential research participants and their close others.

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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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