Physician recruitment of patients to non-therapeutic oncology clinical trials: ethics revisited

Benefits and Risks of Sharing Genomic Data for Research: Comparing the Views of Rare Disease Patients, Informal Carers and Healthcare Professionals

Assessing public and patients’ expectations and concerns about genomic data sharing is essential to promote adequate data governance and engagement in rare diseases genomics research. This cross-sectional study compared the views of 159 rare disease patients, 478 informal carers and 63 healthcare professionals in Northern Portugal about the benefits and risks of sharing genomic data for research, and its associated factors. The three participant groups expressed significantly different views. The majority of patients (84.3%) and informal carers (87.4%) selected the discovery of a cure for untreatable diseases as the most important benefit. In contrast, most healthcare professionals revealed a preference for the development of new drugs and treatments (71.4%), which was the second most selected benefit by carers (48.3%), especially by the more educated (OR (95% CI): 1.58 (1.07–2.34)). Lack of security and control over information access and the extraction of information exceeding research objectives were the two most often selected risks by patients (72.6% and 50.3%, respectively) and carers (60.0% and 60.6%, respectively). Conversely, professionals were concerned with genomic data being used to discriminate citizens (68.3%), followed by the extraction of information exceeding research objectives (54.0%). The latter risk was more frequently expressed by more educated carers (OR (95% CI): 1.60 (1.06–2.41)) and less by those with blue-collar (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.25–0.77) and other occupations (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.26–0.74)). Developing communication strategies and consent approaches tailored to participants’ expectations and needs can benefit the inclusiveness of genomics research that is key for patient-centred care.

Expectations, experiences and preferences of patients and physicians in the informed consent process for clinical trials in oncology

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to explore (1) informed consent (IC) representations, level of understanding, needs, and factors that influence the willingness of cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (phase I) and (2) representations, experiences, and critical issues of physicians involved in the same process (phase II).

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 cancer patients who had been asked to enroll in a phase II/III RCT (phase I). Two focus groups were conducted with 13 physicians enrolled in the same process (phase II). The content produced was analyzed through a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The themes that emerged in the first phase I were grouped into six categories: IC representation, randomization, experimentation, meeting with the physician, factors that influence the willingness to participate, and trial participants' needs. The themes emerged in the phase II were grouped into four: IC representation, critical issues of the IC, relationship, and recruitment of trial participants. Each theme is articulated into sub-themes and deeply discussed.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights (1) the gap between what is ethically demanded in a RCT consultation and the reality of the situation and (2) the difference in perceptions between patients and physicians with reference to the meaning, objectives, and level of understanding of IC.

Informed consent for neonatal trials: practical points to consider and a check list

Obtaining informed consent from parents of critically ill neonates can be challenging. The parental decision-making process is influenced by the severity of the child's condition, the benefit-risk balance, their emotional state and the quality of the relationship with the clinical team. Independent of local legislation, parents may prefer that consent is sought from both. Misconceptions about the absence of risks or unrealistic expectations about benefits should be openly addressed to avoid misunderstandings which may harm the relationship with the clinical team. Continuous consent can be sought where it is unclear whether the free choice of parental consent has been compromised. Obtaining informed consent is a dynamic process building on trusting relationships. It should include open and honest discussions about benefits and risks. Investigators may benefit from training in effective communication. Finally, involving parents in neonatal research including the development of the informed consent form and the process of obtaining consent should be considered standard practice.

Strengths and weaknesses of guideline approaches to safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship

BACKGROUND

It is thought that a dependent relationship between patients and physicians who enroll their own patients in research compromises voluntary informed consent. Therefore, several ethical guidelines for human subject research provide approaches to mitigate these compromises. Currently, these approaches have not been critically evaluated. In this article, we analyze the approaches of ethical guidelines to manage the influence of a dependent relationship between patients and physicians on voluntary informed consent and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches.

METHODS

We performed a review of international ethical guidance documents on human subject research, listed in the Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics and found through cross referencing. We also searched Global Ethics Observatory (GEObs) and the World Health Organization (WHO) website. Guidelines from all years were eligible for inclusion. The date last searched was December 2013.

DISCUSSION

We identified two basic guideline approaches: 1. A process approach, which focuses on the person who obtains informed consent, that is, an independent individual, such as a research nurse or counselor; and 2. A content approach, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation. Both approaches are valuable, either because the influence of the physician may diminish or because it empowers patients to make voluntary decisions. However, the approaches also face challenges. First, research nurses are not always independent. Second, physician-investigators will be informed about decisions of their patients. Third, involvement of a counselor is sometimes unfeasible. Fourth, the right to withdraw may be difficult to act upon in a dependent relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Current guideline approaches to protect voluntary informed consent within a dependent relationship are suboptimal. To prevent compromises to voluntary informed consent, consent should not only be obtained by an independent individual, but this person should also emphasize the voluntary nature of participation. At the same time, dependency as such does not imply undue influence. Sometimes the physician may be best qualified to provide information, for example, for a very specialized study. Still, the research nurse should obtain informed consent. In addition, patients should be able to consult a counselor, who attends the informed consent discussions and is concerned with their interests. Finally, both physicians and research nurses should disclose research interests.