Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 31097
Health Care Ethics in Vulnerable Populations: Clinical Research through the Patient's Eyes

Authors: Alexander V. Libin, Manon Schladen, Assya Pascalev, Nawar Shara, Miriam Philmon, Yuri Millo, Joseph Verbalis

Abstract:

Chronic conditions carry with them strong emotions and often lead to charged relationships between patients and their health providers and, by extension, patients and health researchers. Persons are both autonomous and relational and a purely cognitive model of autonomy neglects the social and relational basis of chronic illness. Ensuring genuine informed consent in research requires a thorough understanding of how participants perceive a study and their reasons for participation. Surveys may not capture the complexities of reasoning that underlies study participation. Contradictory reasons for participation, for instance an initial claim of altruism as rationale and a subsequent claim of personal benefit (therapeutic misconception), affect the quality of informed consent. Individuals apply principles through the filter of personal values and lived experience. Authentic autonomy, and hence authentic consent to research, occurs within the context of patients- unique life narratives and illness experiences.

Keywords: ethical dilemmas, open source technology, patient education, psychology of decision making

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1333318

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1518

References:


[1] 59th World Medical Association General Assembly: Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Seoul, Korea; 2008.
[2] Mitchell CB: Human dignity and biomedicine. Ethics & Medicine 2011, 27(1):5-6.
[3] Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2001.
[4] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Federal policy for the protection of human subjects ('Common Rule'). 2012.
[5] Kreuter MW, Lukwago SN, Bucholtz DC, Clark EM, Sanders- Thompson V: Achieving Cultural Appropriateness in Health Promotion Programs: Targeted and Tailored Approaches. Health Education & Behavior 2003, 30(2):133-146.
[6] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): The wrong shot: Error disclosure. 2011.
[7] Scanlan C, Kerridge IH: Autonomy and chronic illness: Not two components but many. The American Journal of Bioethics 2009, 9(2):40-42.
[8] Kearns AJ, O-Mathuna DP, Scott PA: Diagnostic self-testing: Autonomous choices and relational responsibilities. Bioethics 2010, 24(4):199-207.
[9] Mouradian WE: Deficits versus strengths: ethics and implications for clinical practice and research. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 2001, 38(3):255-259.
[10] Wasan AJ, Taubenberger SP, Robinson WM: Reasons for Participation in Pain Research: Can they Indicate a lack of Informed Consent? Pain Medicine 2009, 10(1):111-119.
[11] Croskerry P: Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2009, 14(0):27-35.
[12] Reigeluth CM, Carr-Chellman AA: Understanding instructional theory. In Instructional-design theories and models, Volume III: Building a common knowledge base. Edited by Reigeluth CM, Carr-Chellman AA. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:3-26.
[13] Rest JR, Narvaez D, Bebeau MJ, Thoma SJ: A neo-Kohlbergian approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychology Review 1999, 11(4):291-324.
[14] Rest JR, Thoma SJ, Edwards L: Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: State preferene and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, 89(1):5-28.
[15] Rest JR, Narvaez D, Thoma SJ: DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91(4):644-659.
[16] Bebeau MJ, Pimple KD, Muskavitch KMT, Borden SL, Smith DH: Moral reasoning in scientific research: Cases for teaching and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions; 1995.
[17] Ross LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, George R. Smith J: Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2010:33-47.
[18] Hofstede G: Culture. 2012.
[19] Hofstede G: VSM 0: Values survey module 2008 questionnaire. 2008.
[20] Narvaez D, Getz I, Rest JR, Thoma SJ: Indicidual moral judgment and cultural ideologies. Developmental Psychology 1999, 35(2):478-488.
[21] Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (Eds.): SStatistical methods (8th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press; 1989.
[22] Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Applied logistic regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2000.
[23] Gans KM, Risica PM, Strolla LO, Fournier L, Kirtania U, Upegui D, Zhao J, George T, Acharyya S: Effectiveness of different methods for delivering tailored nutrition education to low income, ethnically diverse adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2009, 6(24).
[24] Kroeze W, A. W, Brug J: A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of computer-tailored education on physical activity and dietary behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2006, 31(3):205-223.
[25] Neville LM, O'Hara B, Milat AJ: Computer-tailored dietary behaviour change interventions: a systematic review. Health Education Research 2009, 24(4):699-720.
[26] Neville LM, O'Hara B, Milat AJ: Computer-tailored physical activity behavior change interventions targeting adults: A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009, 3(6):30.