+ Site Statistics
References:
52,572,879
Abstracts:
28,705,754
PMIDs:
27,750,366
DOIs:
25,464,004
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Stakeholders' Views of Alternatives to Prospective Informed Consent for Minimal-Risk Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials



Stakeholders' Views of Alternatives to Prospective Informed Consent for Minimal-Risk Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials



Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43(2): 397-409



As interest in comparative effectiveness research grows, questions have emerged regarding whether it is ever acceptable to alter informed consent requirements for research when patients are randomly assigned to widely-used therapies. This paper reports on interviews with Institutional Review Board members and researchers and on focus groups with patients from Geisinger and Johns Hopkins health systems. The objective was to elicit participants' views of the acceptability of four different disclosure and authorization models for low-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials of widely-used therapies. Results suggest that although participants valued autonomous choice, many also believed that it was acceptable to streamline information disclosure and to use an opt-out process for eligible individuals who would prefer not to participate. This provides some preliminary evidence that relevant stakeholders find alternatives to traditional informed consent acceptable for low-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials of widely-used therapies as long as a sufficient amount of choice is preserved.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 058897250

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26242962


Related references

Low risk pragmatic trials do not always require participants' informed consent. BMJ 364: L1092, 2019

Patients' beliefs regarding informed consent for low-risk pragmatic trials. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 17(1): 145, 2018

Public preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 83(9): 1921-1931, 2017

Minimal risk, administrative firm trials, and informed consent. Irb 14(3): 9-10, 12, 1992

Informed consent for comparative effectiveness trials. New England Journal of Medicine 370(20): 1958-1958, 2014

Minimal-risk waiver of informed consent and exception from informed consent (Final Rule) studies at institutional review boards nationwide. Academic Emergency Medicine 12(11): 1134-1137, 2005

Informed consent for pragmatic trials--the integrated consent model. New England Journal of Medicine 370(8): 769-772, 2014

Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Medical Care 51(8 Suppl 3): S53-S57, 2013

Stakeholders' views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. Trials 17(1): 419, 2017

Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions. Value in Health 20(7): 902-908, 2017

Risk, respect for persons, and informed consent in comparative effectiveness research. American Journal of Bioethics 13(12): 46-48, 2014

Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey. Annals of Internal Medicine 163(5): 356-364, 2015

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 4. Informed consent. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 89: 181-187, 2017

A limited number of medicines pragmatic trials had potential for waived informed consent following the 2016 Cioms ethical guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 114: 60-71, 2019

Informed consent, capitation, and conflicts of interest in clinical trials: views from the field. Surgery 140(5): 740-748, 2006