Innovative research methodologies in the EU regulatory framework: an analysis of EMA qualification procedures from a pediatric perspective

Introduction

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers scientific advice to support the qualification procedure of novel methodologies, such as preclinical and in vitro models, biomarkers, and pharmacometric methods, thereby endorsing their acceptability in medicine research and development (R&D). This aspect is particularly relevant to overcome the scarcity of data and the lack of validated endpoints and biomarkers in research fields characterized by small samples, such as pediatrics.

Aim

This study aimed to analyze the potential pediatric interest in methodologies qualified as "novel methodologies for medicine development" by the EMA.

Methods

The positive qualification opinions of novel methodologies for medicine development published on the EMA website between 2008 and 2023 were identified. Multi-level analyses were conducted to investigate data with a hierarchical structure and the effects of cluster-level variables and cluster-level variances and to evaluate their potential pediatric interest, defined as the possibility of using the novel methodology in pediatric R&D and the availability of pediatric data. The duration of the procedure, the type of methodology, the specific disease or disease area addressed, the type of applicant, and the availability of pediatric data at the time of the opinion release were also investigated.

Results

Most of the 27 qualifications for novel methodologies issued by the EMA (70%) were potentially of interest to pediatric patients, but only six of them reported pediatric data. The overall duration of qualification procedures with pediatric interest was longer than that of procedures without any pediatric interest (median time: 7 months vs. 3.5 months, respectively; p = 0.082). In parallel, qualification procedures that included pediatric data lasted for a longer period (median time: 8 months vs. 6 months, respectively; p = 0.150). Nephrology and neurology represented the main disease areas (21% and 16%, respectively), while endpoints, biomarkers, and registries represented the main types of innovative methodologies (32%, 26%, and 16%, respectively).

Discussion

Our results underscore the importance of implementing innovative methodologies in regulatory-compliant pediatric research activities. Pediatric-dedicated research infrastructures providing regulatory support and strategic advice during research activities could be crucial to the design of ad hoc pediatric methodologies or to extend and validate them for pediatrics.

Equity Concerns Across Pediatric Research Recruitment: An Analysis of Research Staff Interviews

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Difficulty recruiting individuals from minoritized and underserved populations for clinical research is well documented and has health equity implications. Previously, we reported findings from interviews with research staff about pediatric research recruitment processes. Respondents raised equity concerns related to recruitment and enrollment of participants from minoritized, low resourced, and underserved populations. We therefore decided to perform a secondary coding of the transcripts to examine equity-related issues systematically.

METHODS

We conducted a process of secondary coding and analysis of interviews with research staff involved in recruitment for pediatric clinical research. Through consensus we identified codes relevant to equity and developed a conceptual framework including 5 stages of research.

RESULTS

We analyzed 28 interviews and coded equity-related items. We report 6 implications of our findings. First, inequitable access to clinical care is an upstream barrier to research participation. Second, there is a need to increase research opportunities where underserved and under-represented populations receive care. Third, increasing research team diversity can build trust with patients and families, but teams must ensure adequate support of all research team members. Fourth, issues related to consent processes raise institutional-level opportunities for improvement. Fifth, there are numerous study procedure-related barriers to participation. Sixth, our analysis illustrates that individuals who speak languages other than English face barriers across multiple stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Research staff members identified equity-related concerns and recommended potential solutions across 5 stages of the research process, which may guide those endeavoring to improve research recruitment for pediatric patients from minoritized and underserved populations.

Overview of global real-world data sources for pediatric pharmacoepidemiologic research

PURPOSE

Given limited information available on real-world data (RWD) sources with pediatric populations, this study describes features of globally available RWD sources for pediatric pharmacoepidemiologic research.

METHODS

An online questionnaire about pediatric RWD sources and their attributes and capabilities was completed by members and affiliates of the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology and representatives of nominated databases. All responses were verified by database representatives and summarized.

RESULTS

Of 93 RWD sources identified, 55 unique pediatric RWD sources were verified, including data from Europe (47%), United States (38%), multiregion (7%), Asia-Pacific (5%), and South America (2%). Most databases had nationwide coverage (82%), contained electronic health/medical records (47%) and/or administrative claims data (42%) and were linkable to other databases (65%). Most (71%) had limited outside access (e.g., by approval or through local collaborators); only 10 (18%) databases were publicly available. Six databases (11%) reported having >20 million pediatric observations. Most (91%) included children of all ages (birth until 18th birthday) and contained outpatient medication data (93%), while half (49%) contained inpatient medication data. Many databases captured vaccine information for children (71%), and one-third had regularly updated data on pediatric height (31%) and weight (33%). Other pediatric data attributes captured include diagnoses and comorbidities (89%), lab results (58%), vital signs (55%), devices (55%), imaging results (42%), narrative patient histories (35%), and genetic/biomarker data (22%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an overview with key details about diverse databases that allow researchers to identify fit-for-purpose RWD sources suitable for pediatric pharmacoepidemiologic research.

May Artificial Intelligence Influence Future Pediatric Research?-The Case of ChatGPT

BACKGROUND

In recent months, there has been growing interest in the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to revolutionize various aspects of medicine, including research, education, and clinical practice. ChatGPT represents a leading AI language model, with possible unpredictable effects on the quality of future medical research, including clinical decision-making, medical education, drug development, and better research outcomes.

AIM AND METHODS

In this interview with ChatGPT, we explore the potential impact of AI on future pediatric research. Our discussion covers a range of topics, including the potential positive effects of AI, such as improved clinical decision-making, enhanced medical education, faster drug development, and better research outcomes. We also examine potential negative effects, such as bias and fairness concerns, safety and security issues, overreliance on technology, and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

While AI continues to advance, it is crucial to remain vigilant about the possible risks and limitations of these technologies and to consider the implications of these technologies and their use in the medical field. The development of AI language models represents a significant advancement in the field of artificial intelligence and has the potential to revolutionize daily clinical practice in every branch of medicine, both surgical and clinical. Ethical and social implications must also be considered to ensure that these technologies are used in a responsible and beneficial manner.

The Use of Race, Ethnicity, and Social Determinants of Health in Three Pediatrics Journals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health (SDOH) are reported and discussed in 3 pediatrics journals.

STUDY DESIGN

Bibliometric analysis of original articles that enrolled children as participants between January-June 2021 published in The Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, and JAMA Pediatrics. We recorded in aggregate the inclusion of race, ethnicity, and SDOH data from the methods, results, and discussion sections of each article. We then used χ² analyses and t tests to compare recording and use of race, ethnicity, and SDOH data on a number of factors.

RESULTS

A total of 317 original articles were included with 200 (63.1%) conducted in the US. Researchers presented 116 unique race and ethnicity categories. US studies reported race significantly more frequently than international studies (166/200, 83.0% vs 29/117, 24.8% P < .001), yet only 24.7% (41/166) of US and 10.3% (3/29) of international studies that reported these data interpreted their significance and linked such to their study findings. US federal funding influenced reporting of race and ethnicity but not interpretation. Less than one-half of all studies reported SDOH (147/317, 46.4%), and very few that reported SDOH interpreted the data to study findings in both the US (18/106, 17.0%) and internationally (3/41, 7.3%).

CONCLUSION

Race, ethnicity, and SDOH data are reported without consistent categories, and their significance is not often explained in both US and international articles. Researchers should be more intentional about how and why they collect, report, and interpret these data to help identify health disparities and highlight health inequities.

The Ethical Limits of Children's Participation in Clinical Research

This essay reflects on arguments by Paul Ramsey, in The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics (1970) and elsewhere, that continue to challenge policy-makers and those doing clinical and translational research involving children. Ramsey argued that parents cannot morally authorize their child's participation in research unless the research is designed to benefit the child. He acknowledged that abiding by this position could have adverse impacts on improving child health, and he concluded, in a 1976 Hastings Center Report piece, that researchers must "sin bravely." Many philosophers and theologians, including Richard McCormick, have argued against Ramsey. The Ramsey-McCormick debate played out in the bioethics literature and, by invitation, at the deliberations of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which was tasked with developing an ethics framework and policies for human subjects protections. Although in its final recommendations, the commission sided with McCormick, the strict limitations on risks and harms to which a child can be exposed were clearly influenced by Ramsey.

Reexamining the categorical exclusion of pediatric participants from controlled human infection trials

Controlled human infection (CHI) models have been developed for numerous pathogens in order to better understand disease processes and accelerate drug and vaccine testing. In the past, some researchers conducted highly controversial CHIs with vulnerable populations, including children. Ethical frameworks for CHIs now recommend vulnerable populations be excluded because they cannot consent to high risk research. In this paper we argue that CHI studies span a wide spectrum of benefit and risk, and that some CHI studies may involve minimal risk. The categorical exclusion of children from CHIs therefore departs from the standard approach to evaluating research risks, as international regulations and ethical guidance for pediatric research generally permit non-beneficial research with low risks. The paradigm in research ethics has also shifted from focusing on protecting vulnerable participants to recognizing that inclusion can be important as a matter of justice, providing new reasons to question this default exclusion of children from CHIs. Recognizing that pediatric CHIs can raise complex ethical issues and are easy to sensationalize in ways that may threaten the public's trust in research and sponsor institutions, we conclude by describing additional complexities that must be addressed before pediatric CHIs beyond licensed vaccine studies might be ethically acceptable.

Evaluating the Film If Not for Me: Children and Clinical Studies

Support for research involving children has a complicated history. Pediatricians and families have a unique opportunity to share perspectives about the relevance of pediatric clinical research. A national broadcast film on pediatric clinical research was developed to improve knowledge about and willingness to consider a clinical study. The film was delivered to a public audience employing a pre-post design comparing knowledge about clinical research before and after watching If Not for Me: Children and Clinical Studies. Change was measured by the difference in number of questions answered correctly prior to and after viewing the film. Engagement was measured by survey and a live feedback qualitative component. Adults viewing the program demonstrated a significant (P < .0001) difference in knowledge about pediatric clinical research across all domains. This format appears to be a viable approach for improving public education and as a support tool for pediatricians and pediatric researchers about this topic.

Unmet Needs in Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-Can Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Fill the Gap? Promises and Ethical Challenges

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a disorder most frequently diagnosed in children and adolescents. Although ADHD can be effectively treated with psychostimulants, a significant proportion of patients discontinue treatment because of adverse events or insufficient improvement of symptoms. In addition, cognitive abilities that are frequently impaired in ADHD are not directly targeted by medication. Therefore, additional treatment options, especially to improve cognitive abilities, are needed. Because of its relatively easy application, well-established safety, and low cost, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising additional treatment option. Further research is needed to establish efficacy and to integrate this treatment into the clinical routine. In particular, limited evidence regarding the use of tDCS in children, lack of clear translational guidelines, and general challenges in conducting research with vulnerable populations pose a number of practical and ethical challenges to tDCS intervention studies. In this paper, we identify and discuss ethical issues related to research on tDCS and its potential therapeutic use for ADHD in children and adolescents. Relevant ethical issues in the tDCS research for pediatric ADHD center on safety, risk/benefit ratio, information and consent, labeling problems, and nonmedical use. Following an analysis of these issues, we developed a list of recommendations that can guide clinicians and researchers in conducting ethically sound research on tDCS in pediatric ADHD.

International Children's Advisory Network: A Multifaceted Approach to Patient Engagement in Pediatric Clinical Research

Pediatric youth advisory groups were created to provide insight and guidance to the clinical research community. Such efforts have become a priority and parallel the demand for patient-centered health care. While steps are being made to integrate the patient voice into research, there remains a lack of pediatric-specific engagement in the development of pharmaceuticals and in clinical research. For example, a significant number of children are still treated with medications that are not approved for use in this age group, due to a lack of clinical trials involving younger children and neonates. The American Academy of Pediatrics noted that physicians are faced with an ethical dilemma, as they must frequently either not treat children with potentially beneficial medications or treat them with medications based on adult studies or anecdotal empirical experience in children. By improving the approach to pediatric study design, indications for pediatric-specific therapies can be developed. We describe a structured organization with empowered youth and parents who are beginning to play a key role in the research process that suggests ways to improve pediatric research and for innovative medical products to be more "child friendly" and usable. We will also describe how investigators can engage the International Children's Advisory Network to obtain valuable youth perspectives on many aspects of clinical research and health care advocacy.

Recruiting African American Children for Research: An Ecological Systems Theory Approach

With health disparities still pervasive and persistent in the United States, medical researchers and social scientists continue to develop recruitment strategies to increase the inclusion of racial/ethnic minority groups in research and interventions. Effective methods for recruiting samples of African American participants for pediatric research may be best understood when situated within an overarching conceptual model-one that serves to organize and explain effective recruitment strategies. A theoretical framework well suited for this purpose is Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, which views individuals as influencing and being influenced by (both directly and indirectly) a series of interconnected social systems. Based on the ecological systems theory and on previous research from multiple domains (e.g., medicine, psychology, public health, social work), in the current article, we review strategies for effective recruitment of African American children and adolescents for research.

Against Harmful Research on Non-Agreeing Children

The Code of Federal Regulations permits harmful research on children who have not agreed to participate, but I will argue that it should be no more permissive of harmful research on such children than of harmful research on adults who have not agreed to participate. Of course, the Code permits harmful research on adults. Such research is not morally problematic, however, because adults must agree to participate. And, of course, the Code also permits beneficial research on children without needing their explicit agreement. This sort of research is also not problematic, this time because paternalism towards children may be justifiable. The moral problem at the center of this paper arises from the combination of two potential properties of pediatric research, first that it might be harmful and second that its subjects might not agree to participate. In Section 2 of this article I explain how the Code permits harmful research on non-agreeing children. Section 3 contains my argument that we should no more permit harmful research on non-agreeing children than on non-agreeing adults. In Section 4, I argue that my thesis does not presuppose that pediatric assent has the same moral force that adult consent does. In Section 5, I argue that the distinction between non-voluntary and involuntary research is irrelevant to my thesis. In Section 6, I rebut an objection based on the power of parental permission. In Section 7 I suggest how the Code of Federal Regulations might be changed.

Non-beneficial pediatric research: individual and social interests

Biomedical research involving human subjects is an arena of conflicts of interests. One of the most important conflicts is between interests of participants and interests of future patients. Legal regulations and ethical guidelines are instruments designed to help find a fair balance between risks and burdens taken by research subjects and development of knowledge and new treatment. There is an universally accepted ethical principle, which states that it is not ethically allowed to sacrifice individual interests for the sake of society and science. This is the principle of precedence of individual. But there is a problem with how to interpret the principle of precedence of individual in the context of research without prospect of future benefit involving children. There are proposals trying to reconcile non-beneficial research involving children with the concept of the best interests. We assert that this reconciliation is flawed and propose an interpretation of the principle of precedence of individual as follows: not all, but only the most important interests of participants, must be guaranteed; this principle should be interpreted as the secure participant standard. In consequence, the issue of permissible risk ceiling becomes ethically crucial in research with incompetent subjects.

Building a common pediatric research terminology for accelerating child health research

Longitudinal observational clinical data on pediatric patients in electronic format is becoming widely available. A new era of multi-institutional data networks that study pediatric diseases and outcomes across disparate health delivery models and care settings are also enabling an innovative collaborative rapid improvement paradigm called the Learning Health System. However, the potential alignment of routine clinical care, observational clinical research, pragmatic clinical trials, and health systems improvement requires a data infrastructure capable of combining information from systems and workflows that historically have been isolated from each other. Removing barriers to integrating and reusing data collected in different settings will permit new opportunities to develop a more complete picture of a patient's care and to leverage data from related research studies. One key barrier is the lack of a common terminology that provides uniform definitions and descriptions of clinical observations and data. A well-characterized terminology ensures a common meaning and supports data reuse and integration. A common terminology allows studies to build upon previous findings and to reuse data collection tools and data management processes. We present the current state of terminology harmonization and describe a governance structure and mechanism for coordinating the development of a common pediatric research terminology that links to clinical terminologies and can be used to align existing terminologies. By reducing the barriers between clinical care and clinical research, a Learning Health System can leverage and reuse not only its own data resources but also broader extant data resources.

Clarifying assent in pediatric research

Assent is a relatively young term in research ethics, but became an often mentioned ethical requirement in current pediatric research guidelines. Also, the European Society of Human Genetics considers assent an important condition for the inclusion of children in biobanks. However, although many emphasize the importance of assent, few explain how they understand the concept and few have elaborated on the underlying grounds. In this paper, we will discuss the different underlying ethical principles of assent. In the first category, assent appears to be derived from informed consent. This understanding is grounded in respect for autonomy and protection against harm. We conclude that this interpretation of assent is not of added value as a majority of children cannot be considered competent to make autonomous decisions. In addition, other safeguards are more appropriate to protect children against harm. The grounds from the second category can be classified as engagement grounds. These grounds do justice to the specifics of childhood and are of added value. Furthermore, we argue that it follows that both the content and the process of assent should be adjusted to the individual child. This can be referred to as personalized assent. Personalized assent is an appeal to the moral responsibility and integrity of the researcher.

Association between pediatric clinical trials and global burden of disease

BACKGROUND

The allocation of research resources should favor conditions responsible for the greatest disease burden. This is particularly important in pediatric populations, which have been underrepresented in clinical research. Our aim was to measure the association between the focus of pediatric clinical trials and burden of disease and to identify neglected clinical domains.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of clinical trials by using trial records in ClinicalTrials.gov. All trials started in 2006 or after and studying patient-level interventions in pediatric populations were included. Age-specific measures of disease burden were obtained for 21 separate conditions for high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We measured the correlation between number of pediatric clinical trials and disease burden for each condition.

RESULTS

Neuropsychiatric conditions and infectious diseases were the most studied conditions globally in terms of number of trials (874 and 847 trials, respectively), while intentional injuries (5 trials) and maternal conditions (4 trials) were the least studied. Clinical trials were only moderately correlated with global disease burden (r = 0.58, P = .006). Correlations were also moderate within each of the country income levels, but lowest in low-income countries (r = .47, P = .03). Globally, the conditions most understudied relative to disease burden were injuries (-260 trials for unintentional injuries and -160 trials for intentional injuries), nutritional deficiencies (-175 trials), and respiratory infections (-171 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric clinical trial activity is only moderately associated with pediatric burden of disease, and least associated in low-income countries. The mismatch between clinical trials and disease burden identifies key clinical areas for focus and investment.

Analysis of pediatric clinical drug trials for neuropsychiatric conditions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neuropsychiatric conditions represent a large and increasing disease burden in children. A number of drugs are available for the treatment of these conditions, but most drugs have not been adequately tested in children, and off-label drug use remains widespread. We sought to define and quantify recent and ongoing clinical research on the use of neuropsychiatric drugs in children.

METHODS

Drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2006 and 2011 and studying neuropsychiatric conditions were selected and classified based on the drug's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval status in children. We measured the proportion of trials seeking to expand the use of a drug to pediatric patients and the proportion of available drugs studied in children.

RESULTS

Only 10% of neuropsychiatric trials focused on children. Of 303 drugs studied in both pediatric and adult populations, 90% lacked FDA approval in children and 97% were not approved in children for the indication studied. However, only 19% of all neuropsychiatric drugs were under study in pediatric populations, with as few as 8% of either antidepressant or antipsychotic drugs. Overall, 76% of pediatric drug trials examined a drug previously unapproved in children and 26% explored the use of a drug for a new indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the rising prevalence of neuropsychiatric disease and the paucity of FDA-approved pediatric drugs, only a small proportion of trials focus on pediatric populations and these trials cover only a fraction of available drugs. This deficiency is most pronounced for depression and schizophrenia.

Effect of child health status on parents' allowing children to participate in pediatric research

BACKGROUND

To identify motivational factors linked to child health status that affected the likelihood of parents' allowing their child to participate in pediatric research.

METHODS

Parents were invited to return their completed questionnaires anonymously to assess motivational factors and factors that might improve participation in pediatric research.

RESULTS

Of 573 eligible parents, 261 returned the completed questionnaires. Of these, 126 were parents of healthy children (group 1), whereas 135 were parents of sick children who were divided into two groups according to the severity of their pathology, i.e., 99 ambulatory children (group 2) and 36 nonambulatory children (group 3). The main factor motivating participation in a pediatric clinical research study was "direct benefits for their child" (87.7%, 100%, and 100% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The other factors differed significantly between the three groups, depending on the child's health status (all p < 0.05). Factors that might have a positive impact on parental consent to the participation of their child in a pediatric clinical research study differed significantly (χ2 test, all p ≤ 0.04), depending on the child's health status. The main factor was "a better understanding of the study and its regulation" for the healthy children and ambulatory sick children groups (31.2% and 82.1%, respectively), whereas this was the third factor for the nonambulatory sick children group (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative strategies should be developed based on a child's health status to improve information provision when seeking a child's participation in pediatric research. Parents would like to spend more time in discussions with investigators.

Pediatric research 'personalized'? International perspectives on the return of results

Decision-making dynamics in pediatric research have their foundation in the principle of the 'best interests of the child'. The introduction of new sequencing technologies and the concomitant debate surrounding the return of research results and incidental findings are, however, challenging the interpretation of this principle. A comparative analysis of international and national approaches to the issue (USA, Canada, France, Spain and the UK) reveals not only the emergence of context-specific pediatric policy in this regard, but one that is 'personalized' to the child - that is, what is clinically significant and actionable during childhood.

Obtaining consent from both parents for pediatric research: what does "reasonably available" mean?

OBJECTIVE

Circumstances surrounding parental availability and decision-making were examined in the setting of a research protocol involving newborn screening (NBS) for fragile X syndrome, in which the institutional review board (IRB) had determined that consent (permission) was required from both parents.

METHODS

A survey was conducted with 3001 families who were approached to participate in optional NBS. In addition to basic demographics, observational notes detailed the reasons why fathers were not present or deemed "not reasonably available" (per IRB regulations), and content analysis identified the factors for this lack of availability. Logistic regression models estimated the likelihood that both parents would agree to enroll their infant in the screening project.

RESULTS

Fathers were not present in 589 cases, including 158 in which fathers were ultimately determined to be not reasonably available. Primary reasons for father's unavailability were deployment with the military, incarceration, living out of state, or not involved in the mother's life. In cases in which both parents were available, 64% agreed to enroll in the NBS study. Criteria to guide researchers in making required determinations were developed from consultations with IRB officials and legal counsel.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large-scale population-based study, 19.6% of fathers were absent for the consent process. Scenarios encountered underscore the complexity of parental relations and their implications for obtaining consent for research involving children. The algorithm developed may serve as a useful tool for others in applying the regulatory requirements for dual parental permission.

Why should there be an NICHD?

In its nearly 5 decades of existence, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has expended $23 billion in conducting and supporting research and translating discoveries to practice. The resulting dramatic impact on peoples' lives and improved health for children and families, chronicled herein, are a testament to the benefits of having this institute at the National Institutes of Health.

Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents' understanding of a pediatric research study

OBJECTIVES

Informed decision-making requires that parents and research subjects understand the risks and benefits of a study, yet research suggests that comprehension of these elements is often poor. This study was designed to examine the effect of factors including manipulation of risk/benefit trade-offs, numeracy, and sociodemographics on parents' understanding of risks and benefits.

METHODS

A total of 4685 parents completed an Internet survey in which they were randomly assigned to receive information about the risks and benefits of a hypothetical pain treatment study presented in 1 of 4 scenarios. Parents' gist (essential) and verbatim (exact) understanding and their perceptions of the risks and benefits were compared across scenarios. The effects of parental sociodemographics and numeracy were also examined.

RESULTS

Participants who were randomly assigned to consider a research study that offered the possibility of improved outcomes had higher gist and verbatim understanding of the information than participants who were considering studies that offered only reductions in the risk for adverse effects. Furthermore, these parents perceived the risks of the study to be significantly lower compared with the scenarios that offered the same risks but less benefit. White race, college education, and higher numeracy all were associated significantly with improved gist and verbatim understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Research studies that offer only improved outcomes to participants may be evaluated more thoroughly than those that offer only reduced risks, and individual characteristics significantly moderate parents' ability to comprehend risk/benefit information. These results are important toward developing strategies to improve the ways in which risks and benefits are communicated to parents and research subjects.

Privacy and ethics in pediatric environmental health research-part I: genetic and prenatal testing

The pressing need for empirically informed public policies aimed at understanding and promoting children's health has challenged environmental scientists to modify traditional research paradigms and reevaluate their roles and obligations toward research participants. Methodologic approaches to children's environmental health research raise ethical challenges for which federal regulations may provide insufficient guidance. In this article I begin with a general discussion of privacy concerns and informed consent within pediatric environmental health research contexts. I then turn to specific ethical challenges associated with research on genetic determinants of environmental risk, prenatal studies and maternal privacy, and data causing inflicted insight or affecting the informational rights of third parties.

Privacy and ethics in pediatric environmental health research-part II: protecting families and communities

BACKGROUND

In pediatric environmental health research, information about family members is often directly sought or indirectly obtained in the process of identifying child risk factors and helping to tease apart and identify interactions between genetic and environmental factors. However, federal regulations governing human subjects research do not directly address ethical issues associated with protections for family members who are not identified as the primary "research participant." Ethical concerns related to family consent and privacy become paramount as pediatric environmental health research increasingly turns to questions of gene-environment interactions.

OBJECTIVES

In this article I identify issues arising from and potential solutions for the privacy and informed consent challenges of pediatric environmental health research intended to adequately protect the rights and welfare of children, family members, and communities.

DISCUSSION

I first discuss family members as secondary research participants and then the specific ethical challenges of longitudinal research on late-onset environmental effects and gene-environment interactions. I conclude with a discussion of the confidentiality and social risks of recruitment and data collection of research conducted within small or unique communities, ethnic minority populations, and low-income families.

CONCLUSIONS

The responsible conduct of pediatric environmental health research must be conceptualized as a goodness of fit between the specific research context and the unique characteristics of subjects and other family stakeholders.

The politics of risk: a human rights paradigm for children's environmental health research

A human rights paradigm for environmental health research makes explicit the relationship between poor health and poverty, inequality, and social and political marginalization, and it aims at civic problem solving. In so doing, it incorporates support for community-based, participatory research and takes seriously the social responsibilities of researchers. For these reasons, a human rights approach may be better able than conventional bioethics to address the unique issues that arise in the context of pediatric environmental health research, particularly the place of environmental justice standards in research. At the same time, as illustrated by disagreements over the ethics of research into lead abatement methods, bringing a human rights paradigm to bear in the context of environmental health research requires resolving important tensions at its heart, particularly the inescapable tension between ethical ideals and political realities.