The Ethics of Decentralized Clinical Trials and Informed Consent: Taking Technologies' Soft Impacts into Account

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have the potential to advance the conduct of clinical trials, but raise several ethical issues, including obtaining valid informed consent. The debate on the ethical issues resulting from digitalization is predominantly focused on direct risks relating to for example data protection, safety, and data quality. We submit however, that a broader view on ethical aspects of DCTs is needed to touch upon the new challenges that come with the DCT practice. Digitalization has impacts that go beyond its direct purposes, by shaping behaviors, experiences, social relations, and values. We examine four elements of the informed consent procedure that are affected by DCTs, while taking these soft impacts of technologies into account: (i) informing participants and testing understanding, (ii) freedoms in relation to responsibilities and burdens, (iii) trust in participant-researcher relations, and (iv) impacts on the concept of privacy. Our analysis reveals that a broad view is key for optimal conduct of DCTs. In addition, it provides insight into the ethical impacts of DCTs on informed consent. Technologies such as DCTs potentially have profound impacts which are not immediately addressed by the existing regulatory frameworks, but nonetheless important to recognize. These findings can guide future practices of DCTs to foster the important values of clinical research in this novel approach for conducting clinical trials.

Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

Experiences and perceptions of continuous deep sedation: An interview study among Dutch patients and relatives

BACKGROUND

The incidence of continuous deep sedation (CDS) has more than doubled over the last decade in The Netherlands, while reasons for this increase are not fully understood. Patients and relatives have an essential role in deciding on CDS. We hypothesize that the increase in CDS practice is related to the changing role of patients and relatives in deciding on CDS.

OBJECTIVE

To describe perceptions and experiences of patients and relatives with regard to CDS. This insight may help professionals and policymakers to better understand and respond to the evolving practice of CDS.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were held with patients and relatives who had either personal experience with CDS as a relative or had contemplated CDS for themselves.

RESULTS

The vast majority of respondents appreciated CDS as a palliative care option, and none of the respondents reported (moral) objections to CDS. The majority of respondents prioritized avoiding suffering at the end of life. The patients and families generally considered CDS a palliative care option for which they can choose. Likewise, according to our respondents, the decision to start CDS was made by them, instead of the physician. Negative experiences with CDS care were mostly related to loss of sense of agency, due to insufficient communication or information provision by healthcare professionals. Lack of continuity of care was also a source of distress. We observed a variety in the respondents' understanding of the distinction between CDS and other end-of-life care decisions, including euthanasia. Some perceived CDS as hastening death.

CONCLUSION

The traditional view of CDS as a last resort option for a physician to relieve a patient's suffering at the end of life is not explicit among patients and relatives. Instead, our results show that they perceive CDS as a regular palliative care option. Along with this normalization of CDS, patients and relatives claim a substantial say in the decision-making and are mainly motivated by a wish to avoid suffering and exercise control at the end of life. These distinct views on CDS of patients, their relatives and healthcare providers should be reconciled in guidelines and protocols for CDS.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the authors in our team (G. H.) has experience with CDS as a relative and ensured that the patient/relative viewpoint was adequately reflected in the design and conduct of our study. In the preliminary phase of our study, G. H. adjusted the topic list so it was better adapted to the current practice of CDS. During the data analysis, G. H. read several interviews and took part in the open and critical discussion on central themes and core concepts as an important member of the author team, thereby guaranteeing the central position of the patient/relative perspective in our final research outcome.

Toward responsible clinical n-of-1 strategies for rare diseases

N-of-1 strategies can provide high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy at the individual level and optimize evidence-based selection of off-label treatments for patients with rare diseases. Given their design characteristics, n-of-1 strategies are considered to lay at the intersection between medical research and clinical care. Therefore, whether n-of-1 strategies should be governed by research or care regulations remains a debated issue. Here, we delineate differences between medical research and optimized clinical care, and distinguish the regulations which apply to either. We also set standards for responsible optimized clinical n-of-1 strategies with (off-label) treatments for rare diseases. Implementing clinical n-of-1 strategies as defined here could aid in optimized treatment selection for such diseases.

The reimbursement for expensive medicines: stakeholder perspectives on the SMA medicine nusinersen and the Dutch Coverage Lock policy

Background

The reimbursement for expensive medicines poses a growing challenge to healthcare worldwide. In order to increase its control over the costs of medicines, the Dutch government introduced the Coverage Lock (CL) policy in 2015. The CL postpones decisions regarding reimbursement of expensive medicines until detailed advice on i.e., cost-effectiveness has been given. The CL has been in place for six years, has raised many questions and concerns, but currently, no evaluation is known to the authors. A better understanding of the effects of the CL on all stakeholders involved may contribute to reflections on the CL process and help find ways to improve it. An evaluation of Dutch policy will also be relevant for other countries that aim to optimize reimbursement procedures for expensive treatments. To perform this evaluation, we focused on the CL procedure for the medicine nusinersen. Nusinersen is the first treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Following EMA approval in May 2017, it was placed in the CL. The analysis of cost-effectiveness and added therapeutic value resulted in an advice for reimbursement limited to children younger than 9.5 years at the start of treatment; this was implemented from August 2018 onwards.

Methods

Qualitative stakeholder perspective analysis of the CL procedure focusing on nusinersen with 15 stakeholders.

Results

Stakeholders raised key issues of the CL based on their experience with nusinersen: emotional impact of the CL, duration of the CL procedure, appropriateness of the CL procedure for different types of medicines, transparency of the CL, a wish for patient-centred decision-making and the lack of uniformity of access to expensive treatments.

Discussion

Stakeholders supported measures to control healthcare expenses and to ensure reasonable pricing. They considered the delay in access to therapies and lack of procedural transparency to be the main challenges to the CL. Stakeholders also agreed that the interests of patients deserve more attention in the practical implementation of the reimbursement decision. Stakeholders suggested a number of adjustments to improve the CL, such as a faster start with conditional reimbursement programs to ensure access and intensify European collaboration to speed up the assessment of the medicine.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08690-z.

Patients' and Publics' Preferences for Data-Intensive Health Research Governance: Survey Study

Background

Patients and publics are generally positive about data-intensive health research. However, conditions need to be fulfilled for their support. Ensuring confidentiality, security, and privacy of patients’ health data is pivotal. Patients and publics have concerns about secondary use of data by commercial parties and the risk of data misuse, reasons for which they favor personal control of their data. Yet, the potential of public benefit highlights the potential of building trust to attenuate these perceptions of harm and risk. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on how conditions for support of data-intensive health research can be operationalized to that end remains scant.

Objective

This study aims to inform efforts to design governance frameworks for data-intensive health research, by gaining insight into the preferences of patients and publics for governance policies and measures.

Methods

We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patients and publics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric inferential statistics to compare group differences and explore associations between policy preferences.

Results

Study participants (N=987) strongly favored sharing their health data for scientific health research. Personal decision-making about which research projects health data are shared with (346/980, 35.3%), which researchers/organizations can have access (380/978, 38.9%), and the provision of information (458/981, 46.7%) were found highly important. Health data–sharing policies strengthening direct personal control, like being able to decide under which conditions health data are shared (538/969, 55.5%), were found highly important. Policies strengthening collective governance, like reliability checks (805/967, 83.2%) and security safeguards (787/976, 80.6%), were also found highly important. Further analysis revealed that participants willing to share health data, to a lesser extent, demanded policies strengthening direct personal control than participants who were reluctant to share health data. This was the case for the option to have health data deleted at any time (P<.001) and the ability to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared (P<.001). Overall, policies and measures enforcing conditions for support at the collective level of governance, like having an independent committee to evaluate requests for access to health data (P=.02), were most strongly favored. This also applied to participants who explicitly stressed that it was important to be able to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared, for instance, whether sanctions on data misuse are in place (P=.03).

Conclusions

This study revealed that both a positive attitude toward health data sharing and demand for personal decision-making abilities were associated with policies and measures strengthening control at the collective level of governance. We recommend pursuing the development of this type of governance policy. More importantly, further study is required to understand how governance policies and measures can contribute to the trustworthiness of data-intensive health research.

Opportunities and Challenges for Decentralized Clinical Trials: European Regulators' Perspective

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) have the potential to improve accessibility, diversity, and retention in clinical trials by moving trial activities to participants’ homes and local surroundings. In this study, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 20 European regulators to identify regulatory challenges and opportunities for the implementation of DCTs in the European Union. The key opportunities for DCTs that were recognized by regulators include a reduced participation burden, which could facilitate the participation of underserved patients. In addition, regulators indicated that data collected in DCTs are expected to be more representative of the real world. Key challenges recognized by regulators for DCTs include concerns regarding investigator oversight and participants’ safety when physical examinations and face‐to‐face contact are limited. To facilitate future learning, hybrid clinical trials with both on‐site and decentralized elements are proposed by the respondents.

The social licence for data-intensive health research: towards co-creation, public value and trust

Background

The rise of Big Data-driven health research challenges the assumed contribution of medical research to the public good, raising questions about whether the status of such research as a common good should be taken for granted, and how public trust can be preserved. Scandals arising out of sharing data during medical research have pointed out that going beyond the requirements of law may be necessary for sustaining trust in data-intensive health research. We propose building upon the use of a social licence for achieving such ethical governance.

Main text

We performed a narrative review of the social licence as presented in the biomedical literature. We used a systematic search and selection process, followed by a critical conceptual analysis. The systematic search resulted in nine publications. Our conceptual analysis aims to clarify how societal permission can be granted to health research projects which rely upon the reuse and/or linkage of health data. These activities may be morally demanding. For these types of activities, a moral legitimation, beyond the limits of law, may need to be sought in order to preserve trust. Our analysis indicates that a social licence encourages us to recognise a broad range of stakeholder interests and perspectives in data-intensive health research. This is especially true for patients contributing data. Incorporating such a practice paves the way towards an ethical governance, based upon trust. Public engagement that involves patients from the start is called for to strengthen this social licence.

Conclusions

There are several merits to using the concept of social licence as a guideline for ethical governance. Firstly, it fits the novel scale of data-related risks; secondly, it focuses attention on trustworthiness; and finally, it offers co-creation as a way forward. Greater trust can be achieved in the governance of data-intensive health research by highlighting strategic dialogue with both patients contributing the data, and the public in general. This should ultimately contribute to a more ethical practice of governance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00677-5.

Ethics and the marketing authorization of pharmaceuticals: what happens to ethical issues discovered post-trial and pre-marketing authorization?

Background

In the EU, clinical assessors, rapporteurs and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use are obliged to assess the ethical aspects of a clinical development program and include major ethical flaws in the marketing authorization deliberation processes. To this date, we know very little about the manner that these regulators put this obligation into action. In this paper, we intend to look into the manner and the extent that ethical issues discovered during inspection have reached the deliberation processes.

Methods

To gather data, we used the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board database and first searched for the inspections, and their accompanying site inspection reports and integrated inspection reports, related to central marketing authorization applications (henceforth, application/s) of drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2011 to 2015. We then extracted inspection findings that were purely of ethical nature, i.e., those that did not affect the benefit/risk balance of the study (issues related to informed consent, research ethics committees, and respect for persons). Only findings graded at least major by the inspectorate were included. Lastly, to identify how many of the ethically relevant findings (ERFs) reach the application deliberation processes, we extracted the relevant joint response assessment reports and reviewed the sections that discussed inspection findings.

Results

From 2011 to 2015, there were 390 processed applications, of which 65 had inspection reports and integrated inspection reports accessible via the database of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Of the 65, we found ERFs in 37 (56.9%). The majority of the ERFs were graded as major and half of the time it was informed-consent related. A third of these findings were related to research ethics committee processes and requirements. Of the 37 inspections with ERFs, 30 were endorsed in the integrated inspection reports as generally GCP compliant. Day 150 joint response assessment reports and Day 180 list of outstanding issues were reviewed for all 37 inspections, and none of the ERFs were carried over in any of the assessment reports or list of outstanding issues.

Conclusion

None of the ethically relevant findings, all of which were graded as major or critical in integrated inspection reports, were explicitly carried over to the joint assessment reports. This calls for more transparency in EMA application deliberations on how ERFs are considered, if at all, in the decision-making processes.

Changing Practices in the Use of Continuous Sedation at the End of Life: A Systematic Review of the Literature

CONTEXT

The use of continuous sedation until death (CSD) has been highly debated for many years. It is unknown how the use of CSD evolves over time. Reports suggest that there is an international increase in the use of CSD for terminally ill patients.

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight in developments in the use of CSD in various countries and subpopulations.

METHODS

We performed a search of the literature published between January 2000 and April 2020, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library by using the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols guidelines. The search contained the following terms: continuous sedation, terminal sedation, palliative sedation, deep sedation, end-of-life sedation, sedation practice, and sedation until death.

RESULTS

We found 23 articles on 16 nationwide studies and 38 articles on 37 subpopulation studies. In nationwide studies on frequencies of CSD in deceased persons varied from 3% in Denmark in 2001 to 18% in The Netherlands in 2015. Nationwide studies indicate an increase in the use of CSD. Frequencies of CSD in the different subpopulations varied too widely to observe time trends. Over the years, more studies reported on the use of CSD for nonphysical symptoms including fear, anxiety, and psycho-existential distress. In some studies, there was an increase in requests for sedation of patients from their families.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of CSD seems to increase over time, possibly partly because of an extension of indications for sedation, from mainly physical symptoms to also nonphysical symptoms.

Prevalence and characteristics of older adults with a persistent death wish without severe illness: a large cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Some older persons develop a persistent death wish without being severely ill, often referred to as "completed life" or "tiredness of life". In the Netherlands and Belgium, the question whether these persons should have legal options for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) is intensely debated. Our main aim was to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of older adults with a persistent death wish without severe illness, as the lack of this knowledge is a crucial problem in de debate.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among a representative sample of 32,477 Dutch citizens aged 55+, comprising questions about health, existential issues and the nature of the death wish. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the group with a persistent death wish and no severe illness (PDW-NSI) and several subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 21,294 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate 65.6%). We identified 267 respondents (1.25%) as having a persistent death wish and no severe illness (PDW-NSI). PDW-NSI did not only occur among the oldest old. Although qualifying themselves as "not severely ill", those with PDW-NSI reported considerable health problems. A substantial minority of the PDW-NSI-group reported having had a death wish their whole lives. Within the group PDW-NSI 155 (0.73%) respondents had an active death wish, of which 36 (0.17% of the total response) reported a wish to actually end their lives. Thus, a death wish did not always equal a wish to actually end one's life. Moreover, the death wishes were often ambiguous. For example, almost half of the PDW-NSI-group (49.1%) indicated finding life worthwhile at this moment.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified characteristics challenge the dominant "completed life" or "tiredness of life" image of healthy persons over the age of 75 who, overseeing their lives, reasonably decide they would prefer to die. The results also show that death wishes without severe illness are often ambiguous and do not necessarily signify a wish to end one's life. It is of great importance to acknowledge these nuances and variety in the debate and in clinical practice, to be able to adequately recognize the persons involved and tailor to their needs.

The moral and legal status of Health Care Workers in Cluster Randomized Trials: a response to Weijer and Taljaard

In 2012, Weijer et al published "The Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials". In 2015, we reflected on this statement and argued that three recommendations in this statement need to be further refined. Weijer and Taljaard have responded to our comments in this issue of the journal. They agree with one of the proposed revisions but not with two others. In this commentary, we argue that the main reason why there is disagreement about two of our refinements is that we have different views on the moral and legal status of the health care workers as "research participants" in cluster randomized trials (CRTs). In this commentary, we clarify misunderstandings about our view expressed in 2015 and elaborate on the positions of health care workers in CRTs. We argue that there is sufficient reason to doubt whether the rights and interests of health care workers (HCWs) should be protected by means of ethics guidance documents and laws on human subjects research. Their interests are protected in the first place by professional codes of conduct which ensure that they cannot provide substandard care. Furthermore, protection of HCWs by ethics guidance on human subjects research will create an enormous burden for principle investigators and research ethics committees. Further debate is essential to determine how the interests of HCWs in CRTs can be protected best.

Responsible data sharing in international health research: a systematic review of principles and norms

BACKGROUND

Large-scale linkage of international clinical datasets could lead to unique insights into disease aetiology and facilitate treatment evaluation and drug development. Hereto, multi-stakeholder consortia are currently designing several disease-specific translational research platforms to enable international health data sharing. Despite the recent adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the procedures for how to govern responsible data sharing in such projects are not at all spelled out yet. In search of a first, basic outline of an ethical governance framework, we set out to explore relevant ethical principles and norms.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature and ethical guidelines for principles and norms pertaining to data sharing for international health research.

RESULTS

We observed an abundance of principles and norms with considerable convergence at the aggregate level of four overarching themes: societal benefits and value; distribution of risks, benefits and burdens; respect for individuals and groups; and public trust and engagement. However, at the level of principles and norms we identified substantial variation in the phrasing and level of detail, the number and content of norms considered necessary to protect a principle, and the contextual approaches in which principles and norms are used.

CONCLUSIONS

While providing some helpful leads for further work on a coherent governance framework for data sharing, the current collection of principles and norms prompts important questions about how to streamline terminology regarding de-identification and how to harmonise the identified principles and norms into a coherent governance framework that promotes data sharing while securing public trust.

Developments in euthanasia practice in the Netherlands: Balancing professional responsibility and the patient's autonomy

In 2015, euthanasia accounted for 4.5% of deaths in the Netherlands, of which 93% were performed by a GP. Historically, a conflict of physician’s duties—to alleviate unbearable suffering and at the same time preserve the patient’s life—is central to the justification of euthanasia practice in the Netherlands. However, there seems to be a shift towards a greater emphasis on the patient’s autonomous wish as the primary basis for euthanasia. This shift has consequences for the role and interpretation of the physician’s duties in end-of-life care. This paper aims to describe these developments in euthanasia practice and end-of-life decision-making. We describe important relevant developments and look into the role and the meaning of two dimensions of the concept of ‘patient autonomy’ regarding end-of-life decisions, in particular, the euthanasia request. We claim that the concept of autonomy ‘as a right,’ which can be distinguished from autonomy ‘as an ideal,’ narrows the physician’s window of opportunity to offer end-of-life care other than euthanasia.

Advance directives, proxy opinions, and treatment restrictions in patients with severe stroke

Background

Patients with severe stroke often do not have the capacity to participate in discussions on treatment restrictions because of a reduced level of consciousness, aphasia, or another cognitive disorder. We assessed the role of advance directives and proxy opinions in the decision-making process of incapacitated patients.

Methods

Sixty patients with severe functional dependence (Barthel Index ≤6) at day four after ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage were included in a prospective two-center cohort study. The decision-making process with respect to treatment restrictions was assessed by means of a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the treating physician at the day of inclusion.

Results

Forty-nine patients (82%) did not have the capacity to participate in the decision-making process. In eight patients, there was no discussion on treatment restrictions and full care was installed. In 41 patients, the decision whether to install treatment restrictions was discussed with proxies. One patient had a written advance directive. In the remaining 40 patients, proxies based their opinion on previously expressed wishes of the patient (18 patients) or advised in the best interest of the patient (22 patients). In 36 of 41 patients, treatment restrictions were installed after agreement between physician and proxy. At six months, 23 of 49 patients had survived. In only three of them the decision on treatment restrictions was based on previously expressed wishes. Remarkably, two of these survivors could not recall any of their alleged previously expressed wishes.

Conclusions

Treatment restrictions were installed in the majority of incapacitated patients after stroke. Proxy opinions frequently served as the best way to respect the patients’ autonomy, but their accuracy remains unclear.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-017-0234-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions

OBJECTIVES

Pragmatic trials evaluate the comparative benefits, risks, and burdens of health care interventions in real-world conditions. Such studies are now recognized as valuable to the perimarketing stage of drug development and evaluation, with early pragmatic trials (EPTs) being explored as a means to generate real-world evidence at the time of regulatory market approval. In this article, we present an analysis of the ethical issues involved in informed consent for EPTs, in light of the generally recognized concern that traditional ethical rules governing randomized clinical trials, such as lengthy informed consent procedures, could threaten the "real world" nature of such trials. Specifically, we examine to what extent modifications (waivers or alterations) to regulatory consent for EPTs would be ethical.

METHODS

We first identify broadly accepted necessary conditions for modifications of informed consent (namely, the research involves no more than minimal risk of harm, the research is impracticable with regulatory consent, and the alternative to regulatory consent does not violate legitimate patient expectations) and then apply those criteria to the premarket and early postmarket contexts.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows that neither waivers nor alterations of regulatory consent for premarket EPTs will be ethically permissible. For postmarket EPTs with newly approved interventions, waivers of consent will be ethically problematic, but some studies might be conducted in an ethical manner with alterations to regulatory consent.

Stakeholders' views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs

BACKGROUND

We explored the views of key stakeholders to identify the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. A secondary aim was to capture stakeholders' attitudes towards the implementation of pragmatic trials in the drug development process.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews among individuals from different key stakeholder groups (academia and independent research institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and patients' organizations) through telephone or face-to-face sessions. Interviews were structured around the question "what challenges were experienced or perceived during the design, conduct and/or review of pragmatic trials." Respondents were additionally asked about their views on implementation of pragmatic trials in the drug development process. Thematic analysis was used to identify the ethically relevant features across data sets.

RESULTS

We interviewed 34 stakeholders in 25 individual sessions and four group sessions. The four perceived challenges of ethical relevance were: (1) less controlled conditions creating safety concerns, (2) comparison with usual care potentially compromising clinical equipoise, (3) tailored or waivers of informed consent affecting patient autonomy, and (4) minimal interference with "real-world" practice reducing the knowledge value of trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified stakeholder concerns regarding risk assessment, use of suboptimal usual care as a comparator, tailoring of informed consent procedures and ensuring the social value of pragmatic trials. These concerns increased when respondents were asked about pragmatic trials conducted before market authorization.

Participatory methods in pediatric participatory research: a systematic review

Meaningful child participation in medical research is seen as important. In order to facilitate further development of participatory research, we performed a systematic literature study to describe and assess the available knowledge on participatory methods in pediatric research. A search was executed in five databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane. After careful screening of relevant papers, finally 24 documents were included in our analysis. Literature on participatory methods in pediatric research appears generally to be descriptive, whereby high-quality evidence is lacking. Overall, five groups of participatory methods for children could be distinguished: observational, verbal, written, visual, and active methods. The choice for one of these methods should be based on the child's age, on social and demographic characteristics, and on the research objectives. To date, these methods are still solely used for obtaining data, yet they are suitable for conducting meaningful participation. This may result in a successful partnership between children and researchers. Researchers conducting participatory research with children can use this systematic review in order to weigh the current knowledge about the participatory methods presented.

What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?

BACKGROUND

In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that.

METHODS

We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative.

RESULTS

We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least.

CONCLUSION

There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences.

Patient representatives' contributions to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of the European Medicines Agency scientific committees

In the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the involvement of patients has been increasingly recognized as valuable and necessary. Specifically in scientific committees, patients through patient representatives are actively involved in deliberations and decision making processes. These scientific committees are meant to ensure that licensed medicines have a positive benefit-risk ratio in favour of the patients and users. To investigate what the contributions are of patient representatives in benefit-risk assessment, we interviewed 15 scientific committee members, 10 of whom are/were EU-state regulatory representatives and five are/were patient representatives. We asked the participants questions related to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of their committees, the connection between patient representatives and the patient perspective, and the contribution of patient representatives in the various benefit-risk assessments tasks. We found that the contribution of patient representatives benefit-risk assessment may be a variable of the benefits and the risks involved in the drug such that the necessity of their contribution is strongly felt when both benefits and risks are high, when benefits are almost equal or are equal to risks and when both benefits and risks are low. In terms of the various benefit-risk tasks, patient representatives contribute to benefit-risk analysis by providing criteria that help define the benefit-risk picture. In benefit-risk evaluation, patient representatives aid in providing a specific basis for the values and weights given to specific benefits and risks and in decision making, they provide what may be a crucial patient perspective in terms of the acceptability of risks. Hence, patient representatives provide a specific expertise in these scientific committees.

The ethics of cluster-randomized trials requires further evaluation: a refinement of the Ottawa Statement

OBJECTIVES

The Ottawa Statement is the first guidance document for the ethical and scientific conduct of cluster-randomized trials (CRTs). However, not all recommendations are straightforward to implement. In this paper we will reflect in particular on the recommendation on identifying human research subjects and the issue to what extent the randomization process should be disclosed if there is a risk of contamination.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The Ottawa Statement was thoroughly evaluated within a multidisciplinary research team, consisting amongst others of epidemiologists and ethicists.

RESULTS

Patients in a CRT may also be considered as research subjects if they are indirectly affected by the studied interventions in a CRT. Second, health care workers are research subjects in CRTs but have a different moral status compared with ordinary research participants. This different status has implications for withdrawal and the choice of the primary objective. Third, modified informed consent for CRTs may be obtained when researchers can demonstrate that disclosure of the randomization process would affect the validity of a CRT.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations of the Ottawa Statement on identifying the research subject and providing informed consent can and should be refined.

Pragmatic randomized trials in drug development pose new ethical questions: a systematic review

Implementation of pragmatic design elements in drug development could bridge the evidence gap that currently exists between the knowledge we have regarding the efficacy of a drug versus its true, comparative effectiveness in real life. We performed a review of the literature to identify the ethical challenges thus far related to pragmatic trials. The three central ethical questions identified for pragmatic trials are: (i) what level of oversight should pragmatic trials require; (ii) do randomized patients face additional risks; and (iii) is a waiver of informed consent ethically defensible? Despite the fact all reviewed publications dealt with post-launch pragmatic trials, these results could serve as an important starting point for conceptualizing which challenges could potentially arise in the pre-launch setting.

Assistance in dying for older people without a serious medical condition who have a wish to die: a national cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The Dutch euthanasia law regulates physician assistance in dying for patients who are suffering unbearably from a medical condition. We studied the attitudes of the Dutch population to assistance in dying for older persons who have a wish to die without the presence of a serious medical condition.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a random sample of the Dutch public (response rate 78%, n=1960), using statements and vignettes about attitudes to assistance in dying for older persons who are tired of living.

RESULTS

A minority of 26% agreed with a vignette in which a physician warrants the request for physician-assisted suicide of an older person who is tired of living without having a serious medical condition. Furthermore, 21% agreed with the statement 'In my opinion euthanasia should be allowed for persons who are tired of living without having a serious disease'. People supporting euthanasia for older persons who are tired of living were more likely than opponents to be highly educated (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3), to be non-religious (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3), to have little trust in physicians (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.2), and to prefer to make their own healthcare decisions (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.3 to 2.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is lower than the level of support for assistance in dying for patients whose suffering is rooted in a serious medical condition, our finding that a substantial minority of the general public supports physician assistance in dying for older people who are tired of living implies that this topic may need to be taken seriously in the debate about end-of-life decision-making.

Opinions about euthanasia and advanced dementia: a qualitative study among Dutch physicians and members of the general public

Background

The Dutch law states that a physician may perform euthanasia according to a written advance euthanasia directive (AED) when a patient is incompetent as long as all legal criteria of due care are met. This may also hold for patients with advanced dementia. We investigated the differing opinions of physicians and members of the general public on the acceptability of euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia.

Methods

In this qualitative study, 16 medical specialists, 19 general practitioners, 16 elderly physicians and 16 members of the general public were interviewed and asked for their opinions about a vignette on euthanasia based on an AED in a patient with advanced dementia.

Results

Members of the general public perceived advanced dementia as a debilitating and degrading disease. Physicians emphasized the need for direct communication with the patient when making decisions about euthanasia. Respondent from both groups acknowledged difficulties in the assessment of patients’ autonomous wishes and the unbearableness of their suffering.

Conclusion

Legally, an AED may replace direct communication with patients about their request for euthanasia. In practice, physicians are reluctant to forego adequate verbal communication with the patient because they wish to verify the voluntariness of patients’ request and the unbearableness of suffering. For this reason, the applicability of AEDs in advanced dementia seems limited.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6939-16-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Timing of Advance Care Planning in frail elderly patients: when to start?]

Advance Care Planning (ACP) is the process of discussing and recording patient preferences concerning goals for end-of-life care and to facilitate decision-making. ACP is an essential element of care for frail elderly patients because frailty increases the risks of negative health outcomes and loss of function. In this article, we present three patient cases to illustrate how general practitioners (GPs) can perform ACP and to demonstrate the importance of early and iterative end-of-life discussions with frail elderly patients. Good timing is decisive for the success of the intervention. GPs are in a key position to identify and discuss ACP matters at an early stage, supported by the geriatrician if necessary. Posing the 'surprise question' has proved helpful to determine timing. Complex ACP interventions contribute to care which is better adapted to the needs of frail elderly patients.

End-of-life decisions in patients with severe acute brain injury

Most in-hospital deaths of patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury, or postanoxic encephalopathy after cardiac arrest occur after a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Decisions on treatment restrictions in these patients are generally complex and are based only in part on evidence from published work. Prognostic models to be used in this decision-making process should have a strong discriminative power. However, for most causes of acute brain injury, prognostic models are not sufficiently accurate to serve as the sole basis of decisions to limit treatment. These decisions are also complicated because patients often do not have the capacity to communicate their preferences. Additionally, surrogate decision makers might not accurately represent the patient's preferences. Finally, in the acute stage, prediction of how a patient would adapt to a life with major disability is difficult.

The fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV trials

Background

In this manuscript, we argue that within the context of phase IV, physician-researchers retain their fiduciary obligation to treat the patient-participants.

Discussion

We first clarify why the perspective that research ethics ought to be differentiated from clinical ethics is not applicable in phase IV, and therefore, why therapeutic orientation is most convivial in this phase. Next, assuming that ethics guidelines may be representative of common morality, we show that ethics guidelines see physician-researchers primarily as physicians and only secondarily as researchers. We then elaborate on what a fiduciary obligation is and how some of the obligations are default duties. Lastly, we look at the fiduciary obligation of the physician-researcher in phase IV interventional trials.

Conclusion

The fiduciary obligation to treat is not as easily waived as in earlier trials. Assuming the entwinement of research and practice in phase IV, physician-researchers, in collaboration with other researchers, investigators, and research ethics committees, should ensure that in terms of study design, methodology, and research practice, the therapeutic value of the research to the patient-participants is not diminished.

['Best proven care' not always the best control]

Willems et al. have recently argued in the Dutch Journal of Medicine that Research Ethics Committees should follow the Declaration of Helsinki in its 2000 version since they believe that this version guarantees better protection for control groups in clinical trials than the 2008 version (and currently its 2013 version). They fear that the sections on placebo-controlled trials in the recent versions allow non-innovative research. We show that the Declaration of Helsinki does not allow research that has no social value. Moreover, we show that the 2000 version is internationally contested. We agree with the authors that the Declaration of Helsinki inadequately protects control groups, but for other reasons. We think that the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) guidelines offer better protection since they require that control groups cannot be withheld an established effective intervention for the condition under study. Unlike the Declaration of Helsinki, the CIOMS guidelines claim that control groups have a right to more than the best proven intervention.

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide? A survey from the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a current topic of debate in many countries. The Netherlands is the only country where legislation covers both.

OBJECTIVES

To study physicians' experiences and attitudes concerning the choice between euthanasia and PAS.

METHODS

A questionnaire including vignettes was sent to a random sample of 1955 Dutch general practitioners, elderly care physicians and medical specialists.

RESULTS

In total, 793 physicians (41%) participated. There was no clear preference for euthanasia (36%) or PAS (34%). Two thirds of physicians thought that PAS underlines the autonomy and responsibility of the patient and considered this a reason to choose PAS. Reasons for not choosing PAS were expected practical problems. A minority (22%) discussed the possibility of PAS with their patient in case of a request for assistance in dying. Patients receiving PAS more often experienced psychosocial suffering in comparison with patients receiving euthanasia. In vignettes of patients with a request for assistance in dying due to psychosocial suffering, physicians agreed more often with the performance of PAS than with euthanasia.

CONCLUSION

Dutch physicians perceive a difference between euthanasia and PAS. Although they believe PAS underlines patient autonomy and responsibility, the option of PAS is rarely discussed with the patient. The more psychosocial in nature the patient's suffering, the more physicians choose PAS. In these cases, PAS seems to fulfil physicians' preferences to emphasize patient autonomy and responsibility. Expected technical problems and unfamiliarity with PAS also play a role. Paradoxically, the choice for PAS is predominantly a physician's one.

Restoring trust in the pharmaceutical sector on the basis of the SSRI case

The lack of public trust in the pharmaceutical sector (i.e. industry, authorities and doctors) could compromise the future of drug development and the regulatory system. Public trust integrates two important components, namely the vulnerability of the truster and the competence of the trustee. Because trust appears to have eroded as a result of drug safety controversies, this paper analyzes the role of public trust during the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and suicidality controversy focusing on the aforementioned trust components. Because the competence component of trust is argued to be paramount in determining and maintaining public trust, the SSRI case shows that this component is a part of public trust where these institutions can build on, and might therefore be better used to substantiate and reinforce, public trust. Efforts to build trust should rely on the ethical, professional (competence) and societal commitment of institutions and individuals to protect the vulnerability of the public during controversies. Because shared values can create trust or increase its levels within a specific environment, industry, authorities and physicians ought to develop novel and cooperative strategies to highlight their shared values and motivations. Rules, regulations and settlements are indispensable tools but undue regulation is costly and can backfire on the rather sensitive trust relationships in the pharmaceutical sector.

News media coverage of euthanasia: a content analysis of Dutch national newspapers

Background

The Netherlands is one of the few countries where euthanasia is legal under strict conditions. This study investigates whether Dutch newspaper articles use the term ‘euthanasia’ according to the legal definition and determines what arguments for and against euthanasia they contain.

Methods

We did an electronic search of seven Dutch national newspapers between January 2009 and May 2010 and conducted a content analysis.

Results

Of the 284 articles containing the term ‘euthanasia’, 24% referred to practices outside the scope of the law, mostly relating to the forgoing of life-prolonging treatments and assistance in suicide by others than physicians. Of the articles with euthanasia as the main topic, 36% described euthanasia in the context of a terminally ill patient, 24% for older persons, 16% for persons with dementia, and 9% for persons with a psychiatric disorder. The most frequent arguments for euthanasia included the importance of self-determination and the fact that euthanasia contributes to a good death. The most frequent arguments opposing euthanasia were that suffering should instead be alleviated by better care, that providing euthanasia can be disturbing, and that society should protect the vulnerable.

Conclusions

Of the newspaper articles, 24% uses the term ‘euthanasia’ for practices that are outside the scope of the euthanasia law. Typically, the more unusual cases are discussed. This might lead to misunderstandings between citizens and physicians. Despite the Dutch legalisation of euthanasia, the debate about its acceptability and boundaries is ongoing and both sides of the debate are clearly represented.

Opinions of health care professionals and the public after eight years of euthanasia legislation in the Netherlands: a mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

The practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the Netherlands has been regulated since 2002 by the Euthanasia Act. In the ongoing debate about the interpretation of this Act, comparative information about the opinions of the different stakeholders is needed.

AIM

To evaluate the opinions of Dutch physicians, nurses and the general public on the legal requirements for euthanasia and PAS.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey among Dutch physicians and nurses in primary and secondary care and members of the Dutch general public, followed by qualitative interviews among selected respondents. The participants were: 793 physicians, 1243 nurses and 1960 members of the general public who completed the questionnaire; 83 were interviewed.

RESULTS

Most respondents agreed with the requirement of a patient request (64-88%) and the absence of a requirement concerning life expectancy (48-71%). PAS was thought acceptable by 24-39% of respondents for patients requesting it because of mental suffering due to loss of control, chronic depression or early dementia. In the case of severe dementia, one third of physicians, 58% of nurses and 77% of the general public agreed with performing euthanasia based on an advance directive. Interviewees illustrated these findings and supported the Act.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care professionals and the general public mostly support the legal requirements for euthanasia and PAS. The law permits euthanasia or PAS for mental suffering but this possibility is not widely endorsed. The general public is more liberal towards euthanasia for advanced dementia than health care professionals. We conclude that there is ample support for the law after eight years of legal euthanasia.

A 10-year analysis of the effects of media coverage of regulatory warnings on antidepressant use in The Netherlands and UK

Background

In 2003–2004 and 2007–2008, the regulatory banning of SSRI use in pediatrics and young adults due to concerns regarding suicidality risk coincided with negative media coverage. SSRI use trends were analyzed from 2000–2010 in the Netherlands (NL) and the UK, and whether trend changes might be associated with media coverage of regulatory warnings.

Methods

Monthly SSRIs sales were presented as DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day. SSRI-use trends were studied using time-series segmented regression analyses. Timing of trend changes was compared with two periods of media coverage of warnings. Annual Dutch SSRI prescription data were analyzed by age group.

Results

Trend changes in SSRI use largely corroborated with the periods of media coverage of warnings. British SSRI use declined from 3.9 to 0.7 DDDs/month (95%CI 3.3;4.5 & 0.5;0.9, respectively) before the first warning period (2003–2004). A small decrease of −0.6 DDDs/month (−1.2; −0.05) was observed in Dutch SSRI use shortly after 2003–2004. From 2007–2008, British SSRI use stabilized, whilst Dutch SSRI use diminished to −0.04 DDDs/month (−0.4;0.3). Stratified analyses showed a rapid decrease of −1.2 DDDs/month (−2.1; −1.7) in UK paroxetine use before 2003–2004, but only a minimal change in Dutch paroxetine use (−0.3 DDDs/month −0.8;0.2). Other SSRI use, especially (es)citalopram, increased during 2003–2004 in both countries. Significant reductions in Dutch paroxetine use were observed in pediatrics, adolescents, and young adults after 2003–2004.

Conclusion

Changes in SSRI use (NL & UK) were associated with the timing of the combined effect of media coverage and regulatory warnings. Our long-term assessment illustrates that changes in SSRI use were temporal, drug-specific and more pronounced in pediatrics and young adults. The twofold increase in SSRI use over one decade indicates that regulatory warnings and media coverage may come and go, but they do not have a significant impact on the overall upward trend of SSRI use as a class in both countries.

Decision theory and the evaluation of risks and benefits of clinical trials

Research ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a clinical trial. In previous studies, it was shown that RECs find this task difficult, if not impossible, to do. The current approaches to benefit-risk assessment (i.e. Component Analysis and the Net Risk Test) confound the various risk-benefit tasks, and as such, make balancing impossible. In this article, we show that decision theory, specifically through the expected utility theory and multiattribute utility theory, enable for an explicit and ethically weighted risk-benefit evaluation. This makes a balanced ethical justification possible, and thus a more rationally defensible decision making.

The risk-benefit task of research ethics committees: an evaluation of current approaches and the need to incorporate decision studies methods

BACKGROUND

Research ethics committees (RECs) are tasked to assess the risks and the benefits of a trial. Currently, two procedure-level approaches are predominant, the Net Risk Test and the Component Analysis.

DISCUSSION

By looking at decision studies, we see that both procedure-level approaches conflate the various risk-benefit tasks, i.e., risk-benefit assessment, risk-benefit evaluation, risk treatment, and decision making. This conflation makes the RECs' risk-benefit task confusing, if not impossible. We further realize that RECs are not meant to do all the risk-benefit tasks; instead, RECs are meant to evaluate risks and benefits, appraise risk treatment suggestions, and make the final decision.

CONCLUSION

As such, research ethics would benefit from looking beyond the procedure-level approaches and allowing disciplines like decision studies to be involved in the discourse on RECs' risk-benefit task.

Informed consent and phase IV non-interventional drug research

Most of the literature on informed consent in pharmaceutical drug research works on the assumption that informed consent is something that is homogeneous and thus can be rendered procedurally universal. This may be justifiable to a certain extent owing to the fact these are all drug trials anyway. Nevertheless, in spite of this general similarity, we also know that the clinical drug development phases are characteristically different, and that phase IV is very different from the other phases because, owing to its postmarketing nature, it is much more varied in scope and in type. Thus, it is worthwhile looking into the ethical nuances relevant to the informed consent process in phase IV non-interventional drug research. We shall deal with the issues on the necessity of informed consent for this type of research and then discuss the possibilities for an opt-out system. We conclude that informed consent is necessary for non-interventional studies, and thus any form of waiving of rights of participants to informed consent must have a valid substantial justification. The distinct character of phase IV accounts for the difference in content of the informed consent document compared to that of earlier phases, and both opt-in and opt-out procedures are ethically justifiable as long as the participant's participation remains informed and voluntary.