Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine

Ana Borovecki,Ana Mlinaric,Martina Horvat,Vesna Supak Smolcic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.030201

2019-10-07

Biochemia Medica

Abstract:Research Integrity Corner by Ana Borovecki, Ana Mlinaric, Martina Horvat, Vesna Supak Smolcic

medical laboratory technology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Research ethics education needs assessment in Serbian medical researchers

Vida Jeremic Stojkovic Smiljana Cvjetkovic Zeljka Stamenkovic Janko Jankovic Pavle Piperac Dragana Ignjatovic Ristic Ivanka Markovic Rosamond Rhodes a Department of Humanities,University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicineb Institute of Social Medicine,University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicinec Department of Psychiatry,University of Kragujevac Faculty of Medical Sciencesd Institute of Medical and Clinical Biochemistry,University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicinee Department of Medical Education,Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2024.2382402

2024-07-25

Ethics & Behavior

Abstract:The lack of formal education in research ethics is a significant issue for the ethical conduct of research in Serbia. We conducted a cross-sectional survey on a sample of researchers and ethics committee members in Serbia to evaluate their self-assessed competence and educational needs in research ethics. Results indicated that previous ethics education had a significant effect on respondents' perception of their own competence in addressing issues like informed consent, authorship, and publishing. Respondents expressed a high motivation for further research ethics education. Moreover, the study revealed that researchers with different specializations and different research experience have different educational needs.

psychology, multidisciplinary,ethics
Ethical Checklists for Clinical Research Projects and laboratory medicine: two tools to evaluate compliance with bioethical principles in different settings

Julián Verona,Yilmaz Gülsen,Martina Zaninotto,Sody Munsaka,Nafija Serdarevic,Sudip K. Datta,Joesph Wiencek,Nilda Fink

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-0604

2024-06-19

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Abstract:To develop two ethical checklists to evaluate (i) management of ethical concerns in research projects and (ii) awareness of ethical conduct of healthcare laboratory professionals. Comprehensive discussion among the members of IFCC Task Force on Ethics based on pertinent literature. This Checklist for Clinical Research Projects should be useful to evaluate research proposals from an ethical perspective before submitting it to an IRB or its equivalent, thereby diminishing rejection rates and resulting in more time-effective projects. The checklist designed to evaluate the ethical conduct in laboratory medicine could be useful for self evaluation (internal audits) and for certification/accreditation processes performed by third parties. These checklists are simple but powerful tools useful to guide professionals to adhere to ethical principles in their practice, especially in developing countries where accredited ethics committees may be difficult to find.

medical laboratory technology
Evolution of informed consent in research: From the Hippocratic Oath to the tailored consent

Jaime Fons-Martinez,Carlos Murciano-Gamborino,Javier Diez-Domingo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.17311.1

2024-04-17

Abstract:Background: Informed consent (IC) is essential in defending the autonomy of potential participants in clinical research. Despite the advances in research ethics, particularly in IC, the different guidelines and codes have not been fully implemented. Several studies have presented consent deficiencies that have resulted in unethical practices or poor understanding of the IC. Main body: This article reviews the evolution of IC, from its philosophical origins and initial use in the Ottoman Empire (16th century) to its use in clinical research today. It also presents the vision of the European project i-CONSENT (Grant Agreement number: 741856), whose main purpose is to improve the understanding of ICs in research and identifies the key components of a new paradigm to develop patient-centred ICs. Conclusions: In many cases, the IC has served to protect the investigator or sponsor from complaints. Different ethical guidelines have sought to make the IC a more useful tool, with little success. Today's IC is mainly a bureaucratic and legal process that fails to consider the patient's point of view. In this context, the Guidelines for Tailoring the Informed Consent Process in Clinical Studies provide alternatives to the current IC process, focusing on the patient's opinions and making them part of the process, thereby improving clinical research quality.
Informed consent: corner stone in ethical medical and dental practice

Heena Kakar,Ramandeep Singh Gambhir,Simarpreet Singh,Amarinder Kaur,Tarun Nanda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.130284

Abstract:Progress in health care technologies has enabled patients to be better informed about all aspects of health care. Patients' informed consent is a legal regulation and a moral principle which represents patients' rights to take part in the clinical decisions concerning their treatment. With increasing awareness among the patients, the concept of informed consent is also evolving in developing countries like India. It is important for the medical and dental practitioners to have a written and signed informed consent from their patients before performing any invasive or irreversible procedures. Informed consent is also needed when providing medical care to children, foreign patients, and incorporating images of the patients while conducting medical and dental research. The present review addresses some of the vital issues regarding informed consent when providing medical and dental care with current review of the literature.
Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study

Roel P.J. van Wijk,Jeroen T.J.M. van Dijck,Marjolein Timmers,Ernest van Veen,Giuseppe Citerio,Hester F. Lingsma,Andrew I.R. Maas,David K. Menon,Wilco C. Peul,Nino Stocchetti,Erwin J.O. Kompanje,The CENTER-TBI investigators and participants,Cecilia Åkerlund,Krisztina Amrein,Nada Andelic,Lasse Andreassen,Audny Anke,Anna Antoni,Gérard Audibert,Philippe Azouvi,Maria Luisa Azzolini,Ronald Bartels,Pál Barzó,Romuald Beauvais,Ronny Beer,Bo-Michael Bellander,Antonio Belli,Habib Benali,Maurizio Berardino,Luigi Beretta,Morten Blaabjerg,Peter Bragge,Alexandra Brazinova,Vibeke Brinck,Joanne Brooker,Camilla Brorsson,Andras Buki,Monika Bullinger,Manuel Cabeleira,Alessio Caccioppola,Emiliana Calappi,Maria Rosa Calvi,Peter Cameron,Guillermo Carbayo Lozano,Marco Carbonara,Simona Cavallo,Giorgio Chevallard,Arturo Chieregato,Giuseppe Citerio,Iris Ceyisakar,Mark Coburn,Jonathan Coles,Jamie D. Cooper,Marta Correia,Amra Čović,Nicola Curry,Endre Czeiter,Marek Czosnyka,Claire Dahyot-Fizelier,Paul Dark,Helen Dawes,Véronique De Keyser,Vincent Degos,Francesco Della Corte,Hugo den Boogert,Bart Depreitere,Đula Đilvesi,Abhishek Dixit,Emma Donoghue,Jens Dreier,Guy-Loup Dulière,Ari Ercole,Patrick Esser,Erzsébet Ezer,Martin Fabricius,Valery L. Feigin,Kelly Foks,Shirin Frisvold,Alex Furmanov,Pablo Gagliardo,Damien Galanaud,Dashiell Gantner,Guoyi Gao,Pradeep George,Alexandre Ghuysen,Lelde Giga,Ben Glocker,Jagoš Golubovic,Pedro A. Gomez,Johannes Gratz,Benjamin Gravesteijn,Francesca Grossi,Russell L. Gruen,Deepak Gupta,Juanita A. Haagsma,Iain Haitsma,Raimund Helbok,Eirik Helseth,Lindsay Horton,Jilske Huijben,Peter J. Hutchinson,Bram Jacobs,Stefan Jankowski,Mike Jarrett,Ji-Yao Jiang,Faye Johnson,Kelly Jones,Mladen Karan,Angelos G. Kolias,Erwin Kompanje,Daniel Kondziella,Evgenios Koraropoulos,Lars-Owe Koskinen,Noémi Kovács,Ana Kowark,Alfonso Lagares,Linda Lanyon,Steven Laureys,Fiona Lecky,Didier Ledoux,Rolf Lefering,Valerie Legrand,Aurelie Lejeune,Leon Levi,Roger Lightfoot,Hester Lingsma,Andrew I.R. Maas,Ana M. Castaño-León,Marc Maegele,Marek Majdan,Alex Manara,Geoffrey Manley,Costanza Martino,Hugues Maréchal,Julia Mattern,Catherine McMahon,Béla Melegh,David Menon,Tomas Menovsky,Benoit Misset,Davide Mulazzi,Visakh Muraleedharan,Lynnette Murray,Ancuta Negru,David Nelson,Virginia Newcombe,Daan Nieboer,József Nyirádi,Otesile Olubukola,Matej Oresic,Fabrizio Ortolano,Aarno Palotie,Paul M. Parizel,Jean-François Payen,Natascha Perera,Vincent Perlbarg,Paolo Persona,Wilco Peul,Anna Piippo-Karjalainen,Matti Pirinen,Horia Ples,Suzanne Polinder,Inigo Pomposo,Jussi P. Posti,Louis Puybasset,Andreea Radoi,Arminas Ragauskas,Rahul Raj,Malinka Rambadagalla,Jonathan Rhodes,Sylvia Richardson,Sophie Richter,Samuli Ripatti,Saulius Rocka,Cecilie Roe,Olav Roise,Jonathan Rosand,Jeffrey V. Rosenfeld,Christina Rosenlund,Guy Rosenthal,Rolf Rossaint,Sandra Rossi,Daniel Rueckert,Martin Rusnák,Juan Sahuquillo,Oliver Sakowitz,Renan Sanchez-Porras,Janos Sandor,Nadine Schäfer,Silke Schmidt,Herbert Schoechl,Guus Schoonman,Rico Frederik Schou,Elisabeth Schwendenwein,Charlie Sewalt,Toril Skandsen,Peter Smielewski,Abayomi Sorinola,Emmanuel Stamatakis,Simon Stanworth,Robert Stevens,William Stewart,Ewout W. Steyerberg,Nino Stocchetti,Nina Sundström,Anneliese Synnot,Riikka Takala,Viktória Tamás,Tomas Tamosuitis,Mark Steven Taylor,Braden Te Ao,Olli Tenovuo,Alice Theadom,Matt Thomas,Dick Tibboel,Marjolein Timmers,Christos Tolias,Tony Trapani,Cristina Maria Tudora,Peter Vajkoczy,Shirley Vallance,Egils Valeinis,Zoltán Vámos,Gregory Van der Steen,Joukje van der Naalt,Jeroen T.J.M. van Dijck,Thomas A. van Essen,Wim Van Hecke,Caroline van Heugten,Dominique Van Praag,Thijs Vande Vyvere,Roel P.J. van Wijk,Alessia Vargiolu,Emmanuel Vega,Kimberley Velt,Jan Verheyden,Paul M. Vespa,Anne Vik,Rimantas Vilcinis,Victor Volovici,Nicole von Steinbüchel,Daphne Voormolen,Petar Vulekovic,Kevin K.W. Wang,Eveline Wiegers,Guy Williams,Lindsay Wilson,Stefan Winzeck,Stefan Wolf,Zhihui Yang,Peter Ylén,Alexander Younsi,Frederick A. Zeiler,Veronika Zelinkova,Agate Ziverte,Tommaso Zoerle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.05.004

IF: 4.298

2020-10-01

Journal of Critical Care

Abstract:PURPOSE: Enrolling traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with an inability to provide informed consent in research is challenging. Alternatives to patient consent are not sufficiently embedded in European and national legislation, which allows procedural variation and bias. We aimed to quantify variations in informed consent policy and practice.METHODS: Variation was explored in the CENTER-TBI study. Policies were reported by using a questionnaire and national legislation. Data on used informed consent procedures were available for 4498 patients from 57 centres across 17 European countries.RESULTS: Variation in the use of informed consent procedures was found between and within EU member states. Proxy informed consent (N = 1377;64%) was the most frequently used type of consent in the ICU, followed by patient informed consent (N = 426;20%) and deferred consent (N = 334;16%). Deferred consent was only actively used in 15 centres (26%), although it was considered valid in 47 centres (82%).CONCLUSIONS: Alternatives to patient consent are essential for TBI research. While there seems to be concordance amongst national legislations, there is regional variability in institutional practices with respect to the use of different informed consent procedures. Variation could be caused by several reasons, including inconsistencies in clear legislation or knowledge of such legislation amongst researchers.

critical care medicine
Facing new challenges to informed consent processes in the context of translational research: the case in CARPEM consortium

Elise Jacquier,Pierre Laurent-Puig,Cécile Badoual,Anita Burgun,Marie-France Mamzer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00592-9

2021-03-02

BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:Abstract Background In the context of translational research, researchers have increasingly been using biological samples and data in fundamental research phases. To explore informed consent practices, we conducted a retrospective study on informed consent documents that were used for CARPEM’s translational research programs. This review focused on detailing their form, their informational content, and the adequacy of these documents with the international ethical principles and participants’ rights. Methods Informed consent forms (ICFs) were collected from CARPEM investigators. A content analysis focused on information related to biological samples and data treatment (context of sampling and collect, aims, reuse, consent renewal), including the type of consent. An automatic assessment of the readability of the ICFs were performed with the IT program “Flesch Score”. Results 29 ICFs from 25 of 49 studies were analyzed after selection criteria were applied. Three types of consent were identified: 11 broad consents, six specific consents, and two opt-out consents. The Flesch Scores showed that most of the documents were too complex to be fully understood by most of the potential research participants. Most of the biological samples were collected during the healthcare routine, but the information content about secondary use of biological samples varied between ICFs. All documents mentioned personal data treatment but information about their reuse was not standardized in the ICFs. Conclusions Our review of current IC procedures of CARPEM showed that practices could be improved considering new translational research methods. “Old fashion written ICFs” should be adapted to the translational research approach, to better respect individual rights and international research ethics principles. In this context, theoretically, a digital tool allowing dynamic information and consent of participants, through an electronic interactive platform may be a good way to promote more active participation in research. Nevertheless, its feasibility in the complex environment of biological samples and data research remains to prove. The way of a combination of a broad consent followed by dynamic information may be alternatively tested.

ethics,medical ethics,social sciences, biomedical
Ethics approval: responsibilities of journal editors, authors and research ethics committees

Luchuo Engelbert Bain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.28.200.14170

2017-11-03

Abstract:Meaningful progress of medicine depends on research that must ultimately involve human subjects. Obtaining ethical approval therefore, especially in medical sciences, should be a moral reflex for researchers. This unfortunately is not the case, with numerous researchers bypassing the ethics approval procedure, or simply unaware of its importance. Good research involves risks taken by research participants and uses tax payers' money in the process. These mandates the research endeavor to aim at attaining the highest degree of respect for the sacrifices made by others for science. Most researchers mistake scientific clearance or approval, for ethics approval. For a study to be ethical sound, it must be scientifically sound. This is only one of the activities carried out during protocol review. It is not uncommon for sensitive ethical concerns, especially in the social sciences to be overlooked and considered not to be accompanied by any serious risks for the research participants.The researcher has the responsibility of systematically consulting the competent ethics committee for advice and consequent approvals or ethical waivers. Journal editors and reviewers have the duty to systematically evaluate the ethical soundness of manuscripts submitted for review. Capacity building in research ethics and institutional support for Research Ethics Committees to speed up protocol review could reduce the incentive of carrying out research in human subjects without ethics approvals. It is hypocritical and idle to continue to expect optimal reviews on time and of good quality, from ethics committees functioning purely on altruistic grounds. Capacity building for researchers in research ethics, and institutional reforms and support for Research Ethics Committees appear not to have received the attention they truly deserve.
[Emerging ethical issues in clinical practice: a regional survey]

Giuliana Pitacco,Nadia Urli,Sandro Centonze,Alberto Ferrazzano,Sandra Santarossa,Maria Grazia Valentini,Paola Ponton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1702/3599.35802

Abstract:. Emerging ethical issues in clinical practice: a regional survey. Introduction: In 2016, the Friuli Venezia Giulia Region established the Clinical Ethics Committees in every health agency of the Region. To initiate a proactive way of "doing ethics" giving voice to those who face clinical-ethical problems, a survey was carried out in six health agencies. Aim: To identify the most relevant ethical issues. Methods: Survey through self-administered questionnaires, which explore: a) the ethical dimension of work in health care; b) situations of potential moral conflict; c) death and dying; (d) how ethical issues are handled and the role of ethic committees. Results: 2.774 questionnaires were collected. Almost all respondents (97%) consider ethics an integral dimension of the health profession; 35% report a lack of education on bioethic issues. Behaviors that generated moral suffering (lack of respect of patients as persons 43%; aggressive medical treatment 29%). End-of-life ethical issues were the most controversial wellas the discharge of not self-sufficient patients without a social network. Restraints use was a source of conflict; receive education on; 60% of health professionals did receive education on death and dying death and dying; 51% felt inadequate in dealing with these issues. Only 8% referred to use ethical advice. Conclusions: Ethical Committees could play a role in fostering debate, proposing methods for detecting, describing and analysing ethical dilemmas, to supporting professionals in difficult clinical choices.
Patient Information and Informed Consent for Research in the Elderly: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Controlled Trial

Maria López-Parra,Francesc Zamora-Carmona,Mònica Sianes-Gallén,Esmeralda López-González,Dolors Gil-Rey,Helena Costa-Ventura,Miriam Borrás-Sánchez,Gemma Rayo-Posadas,Marta Arizu-Puigvert,Roser Vives-Vilagut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061036

2022-06-02

Health Care

Abstract:The informed consent (IC) of subjects participating in experimental studies is the mainstay to comply with the ethical principle of autonomy to ensure that the participation is voluntary. This experience was performed within the context of a single-center randomized clinical trial in elective prosthetic surgery. Obtaining IC in clinical trials is not without difficulties, and especially in the case of vulnerable populations it can be very challenging. This work aimed to identify the difficulties during the IC process for a clinical trial in subjects older than 65 years old and quantify and describe the use of IC in front of a witness. Methods: This is a mixed methodology study with a qualitative part (focus group with 4 nurses involved in the inclusion of subjects) and a quantitative part describing the characteristics of patients who signed IC forms. Results: The main difficulties identified are related to comprehension, sensory impairments, education level, and time. IC in front of witnesses was used in 20 patients out of 508. Conclusions: The participation of subjects older than 65 years old in clinical trials requires an adaptation of the process. The use of IC in front of a witness should always be considered in studies including elderly subjects.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
125 Insights from a Process Improvement Co-op in the Development of an Informed Consent Professional Certificate (ICPC) Course

Marisabel Davalos,Kenia F. Viamonte,Cynthia Gates,Olveen Carrasquillo,Erin N. Kobetz,Carl I Schulman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.122

2024-04-04

Journal of Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The objectives of the ICPC Course were 1) to define elements needed to 'build' a solid framework for the creation of an effective informed consent document; 2) to examine various regulatory references and their importance in the context of the informed consent process; and 3) to review helpful tips and best practices of the informed consent process. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This 7-week course was a multi-disciplinary effort by the Miami CTSI, the Regulatory and Monitoring Support Office and the Human Subjects Research Office (HSRO), as part of their co-op partnership. The CTSI's Network of Clinical Research Professionals (NCRP) (over 1995 members and established to offer and enhance education, training, and overall career development and networking for the U's diverse research workforce) served as the target audience. The lead HSRO official was the course content developer and served as instructor. The Director of the HSRO served as the certificate & program coordinator. Additionally, this course indirectly fulfilled part of the requirements of the Institution's AAHRPP re-accreditation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: 70 persons attended all sessions and received their certificate. A post-course survey was deployed (n=70). 69 respondents were extremely satisfied with course content; 67 were likely to recommend the course to a colleague. Feedback highlights include: appreciation for time taken to organize/offer the course; presenter knowledge and preparation; and that case studies/examples were up-to-date and applicable. As an added incentive to participate in the course, both the School of Nursing and the Medical School provided CEU credits and the Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA) accepted documentation of candidate participation in continuing education programs for recertification. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Based on a need identified through a multi-disciplinary process, a successful Informed Consent Professional Certificate Course was created and implemented. Respondents indicate extremely high satisfaction with the course and felt it was very relevant and applicable to their practice.
Ethics committees in Italy: a survey on a sample of oncologists

Paola Mosconi,Giovanni Apolone,Giovanna Cattaneo,Livia Pomodoro,Silvio Garattini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030089160308900216

Tumori

Abstract:Aims and background: The mission of physicians and the purpose of clinical research may give rise to a conflict between medical ethics and human rights. All the recommendations, directives and laws regarding experimental interventions require a formal protocol, approval from an ethics committee (EC), and written informed consent from potential participants. In Italy new guidelines on handling submissions to EC were published in 1998. One year later, there was a feeling among people involved in EC activities that the immediate impact of the new rules (ie, decentralization and emphasis on pharmacological aspects of the studies) was negative. A prospective study was launched to evaluate oncologists' opinions on Italian EC functioning. Methods and study design: A questionnaire was administered twice to 110 oncologists involved in two multicenter trials. Nine questions were included regarding the following aspects: presence of an EC at hospital level, personal experience with an EC, average time required for the evaluation of proposals submitted, and level of satisfaction with important functions of the EC. Results: Responses were received from 93 (first survey) and 69 (second survey) clinicians. In both surveys clinicians reported they were satisfied with the scientific and ethical aspects of EC functioning but dissatisfied with educational activities and training as well as bureaucratic and clerical requirements. At the second survey, the mean time required for evaluation after the submission of a study protocol was about 2.4 months and the level of dissatisfaction was still high for some critical aspects such as bureaucracy (44%) and educational activities and training (64%). Analysis of the change over time documented small differences (from -8% to +7%) in all aspects evaluated. Conclusions: Despite the limitations of the present study, ie, the small sample size and the intrinsic characteristics of the Italian setting, the findings add empirical evidence regarding the functioning of local EC and clinical researchers' opinions. This experience confirms that empirical studies on medical ethics are feasible and may produce useful information to facilitate the implementation of EC in the medical and lay community.
Ethical Principles in Plastic Surgery Research

Vercler,Christian J.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1778045

2024-02-10

Seminars in Plastic Surgery

Abstract:Research is an integral part of medical progress that leads to better understanding of disease processes and the development of therapies to improve patient care. The medical community has an obligation and societal responsibility to review its practices and advance its knowledge to optimize care for those who entrust it with their health and well-being. While ultimately intended to benefit patients specifically and society as a whole, every laboratory and clinical investigation inherently carries an element of uncertainty and has attendant risks. These can have unintended and, at times, harmful consequences that cannot justify the knowledge gained. In order to mitigate these risks and protect human subjects involved in clinical research studies, a basic framework of ethical principles has been developed to guide responsible experimental design, execution, and data dissemination. This article provides a review of these principles and the historical context from which they were derived and explores the persistent challenges and cognitive biases that can increase susceptibility to unethical research practices. Article published online: 08 February 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

surgery
Ethics of Clinical Oncology Research

Manish Agrawal,Lindsay A. Hampson,Ezekiel J. Emanuel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31056-8_9

2024-02-20

Oncology

Abstract:Ever since the earliest days of cancer research, ethical issues have been integral. In 1891, a French physician, Victor Cornil, reported that to determine whether cancer was contagious, a small section of breast tumor removed from the breast of one woman was implanted in her contralateral noncancerous breast. The surgical resection and implant were conducted when the patient was anesthetized and without the patient’s consent. When this research study was initially reported it was condemned “as criminal.“ In 1892, another cancer surgeon, William Coley, was conducting studies to determine whether “artificial erysipelas” (induced inflammation) would have antineoplastic effects. In describing one patient with a sarcoma, he noted that initially the patient was most reluctant to undergo the treatment. But “after some deliberation he consented, and on the 21st of April 1892 I began inoculations.” Since that time, there has been substantial thought about the ethical issues involved in clinical oncology research, producing both more systematic analyses and important empirical data relevant to these issues. We delineate a general framework for analyzing the ethics of clinical research studies and then examine ethical issues involved in individual topics: (1) randomization and clinical equipoise; (2) informed consent; (3) Phase I oncology research; (4) stored biologic samples; (5) genetic testing; and (6) conflict of interest.

oncology
Precision Medicine and the Institutional Review Board: Ethics and the Genome

Marc R Matrana,Bob Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.19.0098

Abstract:Background: Clinical research studies often integrate precision medicine technologies and techniques, offering novel treatment opportunities for patients but also posing significant challenges for regulatory authorities and local institutional review boards (IRBs) as they attempt to protect patient safety and privacy. Methods: We review the basics of precision medicine and discuss how IRBs are addressing new challenges associated with the era of precision medicine. Results: Precision medicine trials rely on genomic testing for inclusion criteria and investigational drug therapy choices. The vast amounts of complex information that can be obtained from basic genetic sequencing tests must be stored, analyzed, and interpreted, creating challenges for clinicians, researchers, and regulatory staff who are concerned with complex ethical, security, and legal issues surrounding patients' personal genetic data in the digital age. All members of the IRB face a rapidly changing environment. The traditional areas of primary concern, such as patient privacy, terminology, and financial benefits, have been joined by issues associated with precision medicine, such as accelerated US Food and Drug Administration drug approval, multiple informed consent form modifications, increasing length and complexity of informed consent forms, and participant genetic privacy. The challenge to the IRB is to remain focused on the prior areas of significance while also adapting the evaluation process to the novel science of precision medicine. Conclusion: In this era of exponentially increasing big data and easy-to-access genetic sequencing data, IRBs will be tasked with adapting their processes and adjusting to the new technology and its corresponding complexities. Such adaptation has always been required of IRBs, but now it will need to occur rapidly as technology and data analysis capabilities accelerate.
Comparative study on informed consent regulation in health care among Italy, France, United Kingdom, Nordic Countries, Germany, and Spain

Vittorio Bolcato,Chiara Franzetti,Giovanni Fassina,Giuseppe Basile,Rosa Maria Martinez,Livio Pietro Tronconi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2024.102674

IF: 1.691

2024-03-16

Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine

Abstract:The information and subsequent expression of will, so-called informed consent, have become the essential element of health right, understood as the right to autonomous choice in health, based on the fiduciary relationship between physician and patient. This gradually leads European Countries to adopt special legislations and to issue frequent judgments on the subject. However, new challenges in daily clinical practice call for further study of legal solutions. The authors analyse and compare the regulations on informed consent in health care of Italy, France, the United Kingdom, the Nordic Countries, Germany, and Spain. The health and legal contexts, existence of special regulations on informed consent and their characteristics are discussed. Informed consent resulted a mandatory requirement. Clear communication about treatment, therapeutic alternatives, and major risks, discussed in conversation, but preferably documented in writing, are agreed upon. The possibility of dissent and withdrawal of consent are also included. There is a growing interest in involving and regulating the entire health team in information and consent. Lowering the age of consent for minors or analysing the maturity of minors are attempts to increase their participation in health decisions. On another side, the protection of adult incapables persons requires greater involvement of family and fiduciaries to better adapt to changing health needs. Health policy must take responsibility for training health professionals and citizens about the value of health information and communication as a shared choice in care planning, to strengthen the bond of trust with the healthcare system and users.

medicine, legal
Informed consent in clinical practice: Old problems, new challenges

Isaac Ks Ng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715241247087

Abstract:Informed consent is a fundamental tenet of patient-centred clinical practice as it upholds the ethical principle of patient autonomy and promotes shared decision-making. In the medicolegal realm, failure to meet the accepted standards of consent can be considered as medical negligence which has both legal and professional implications. In general, valid consent requires three core components: (1) the presence of mental capacity - characterised by the patient's ability to comprehend, retain information, weigh options and communicate the decision, (2) adequate information disclosure - based on the 'reasonable physician' or 'reasonable patient' standards and (3) voluntariness in decision-making. Nonetheless, in real-world clinical settings, informed consent is not always optimally achieved, due to various patient, contextual and systemic factors. In this article, I herein discuss three major challenges to informed consent in clinical practice: (1) patient literacy and sociocultural factors, (2) psychiatric illnesses and elderly patients with cognitive impairment and (3) artificial intelligence in clinical care, and sought to offer practical mitigating strategies to address these barriers.
What should I tell my patient? Disclosure in anaesthesiology: difficulties, requirements, guidelines and suggestions

Malcolm de Roubaix

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/22201181.2018.1432252

2018-02-21

Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia

Abstract:South African anaesthesiologists have embraced the requirement for authentic informed consent, but there is no consensus regarding the comprehensiveness and specificity requirements with regard to the information that needs to be supplied to the patient, and upon which decisions will be based. Anaesthesiology is an unusual specialty. The scope of knowledge and expertise that practitioners require is wide-ranging, from the basic and applied biomedical sciences and technology, clinical knowledge and experience, through to hands-on operating room experience and expertise, feeding into the requirement to inform. Contemporary practice environments limit contact time with patients. Societal ethos demands recognition of basic human rights, amongst others the right to personal autonomy. The South African Health Professions Council has published a series of booklets describing guidelines to ethical medical practice, one of which is on informed consent. This article discusses the information requirements for valid informed consent from both a moral and regulatory perspective. The practical implications for anaesthesiologists of the HPCSA guidelines on informed consent are discussed, a model interview is proposed, and a number of illustrative cases are discussed. The aim is to answer the question: What should I as anaesthesiologist tell my patient?
Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

Anna Catharina V. Armond,Kelly D. Cobey,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367

IF: 7.407

2024-04-20

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Research integrity is guided by a set of principles to ensure research reliability, and rigor. It serves as a pillar to uphold society's trust in science and foster scientific progress. However, over the past two decades, a surge in research integrity concerns, including fraudulent research, reproducibility challenges, and questionable practices, has raised critical questions about the reliability of scientific outputs, particularly in biomedical research. In the biomedical sciences, any breaches in research integrity could potentially lead to a domino effect impacting patient care, medical interventions, and the broader implementation of healthcare policies. Addressing these breaches requires measures such as rigorous research methods, transparent reporting, and changing the research culture. Institutional support through clear guidelines, robust training, and mentorship is crucial to fostering a culture of research integrity. However, structural and institutional factors, including research incentives and recognition systems, play an important role in research behavior. Therefore, promoting research integrity demands a collective effort from all stakeholders to maintain public trust in the scientific community and ensure the reliability of science. Here we discuss some definitions and principles, the implications for biomedical sciences, and propose actionable steps to foster research integrity.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
The Open Brain Consent: Informing research participants and obtaining consent to share brain imaging data

Elise Bannier,Gareth Barker,Valentina Borghesani,Nils Broeckx,Patricia Clement,Kyrre E. Emblem,Satrajit Ghosh,Enrico Glerean,Krzysztof J. Gorgolewski,Marko Havu,Yaroslav O. Halchenko,Peer Herholz,Anne Hespel,Stephan Heunis,Yue Hu,Chuan‐Peng Hu,Dorien Huijser,María Iglesia Vayá,Radim Jancalek,Vasileios K. Katsaros,Marie‐Luise Kieseler,Camille Maumet,Clara A. Moreau,Henk‐Jan Mutsaerts,Robert Oostenveld,Esin Ozturk‐Isik,Nicolas Pascual Leone Espinosa,John Pellman,Cyril R Pernet,Francesca Benedetta Pizzini,Amira Šerifović Trbalić,Paule‐Joanne Toussaint,Matteo Visconti di Oleggio Castello,Fengjuan Wang,Cheng Wang,Hua Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25351

IF: 4.8

2021-02-01

Human Brain Mapping

Abstract:Having the means to share research data openly is essential to modern science. For human research, a key aspect in this endeavor is obtaining consent from participants, not just to take part in a study, which is a basic ethical principle, but also to share their data with the scientific community. To ensure that the participants' privacy is respected, national and/or supranational regulations and laws are in place. It is, however, not always clear to researchers what the implications of those are, nor how to comply with them. The Open Brain Consent (https://open-brain-consent.readthedocs.io) is an international initiative that aims to provide researchers in the brain imaging community with information about data sharing options and tools. We present here a short history of this project and its latest developments, and share pointers to consent forms, including a template consent form that is compliant with the EU general data protection regulation. We also share pointers to an associated data user agreement that is not only useful in the EU context, but also for any researchers dealing with personal (clinical) data elsewhere.

radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,neurosciences,neuroimaging
Investigation and Analysis of Informed Consent in Assisted Reproductive Technology Institutions

Jing GUO,Huiyun YUAN

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To investigate and analyze of informed consent in assisted reproductive technology ( ART) institutions, understand the status and problems.Improve the content and methods of informed consent. Methods:A questionnaire was investigated for the medical staffs and patients anonymously in ART institutions. Results:The implementation of informed consent need to be improved.Medical staffs protect the patient privacy inadequately.The patients also not pay attention to the informed consent.Medical staffs look forward to ethics training.Conclusions:The current situation of informed consent is not optimistic in ART institutions.The ethics training need to be strengthen to improve the awareness of medical staffs about informed consent.The content and methods of informed consent should be standardized,and explore the evaluation methods to enhance the effect of in-formed consent.

Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine

Research ethics education needs assessment in Serbian medical researchers

Ethical Checklists for Clinical Research Projects and laboratory medicine: two tools to evaluate compliance with bioethical principles in different settings

Evolution of informed consent in research: From the Hippocratic Oath to the tailored consent

Informed consent: corner stone in ethical medical and dental practice

Informed consent procedures in patients with an acute inability to provide informed consent: Policy and practice in the CENTER-TBI study

Facing new challenges to informed consent processes in the context of translational research: the case in CARPEM consortium

Ethics approval: responsibilities of journal editors, authors and research ethics committees

[Emerging ethical issues in clinical practice: a regional survey]

Patient Information and Informed Consent for Research in the Elderly: Lessons Learned from a Randomized Controlled Trial

125 Insights from a Process Improvement Co-op in the Development of an Informed Consent Professional Certificate (ICPC) Course

Ethics committees in Italy: a survey on a sample of oncologists

Ethical Principles in Plastic Surgery Research

Ethics of Clinical Oncology Research

Precision Medicine and the Institutional Review Board: Ethics and the Genome

Comparative study on informed consent regulation in health care among Italy, France, United Kingdom, Nordic Countries, Germany, and Spain

Informed consent in clinical practice: Old problems, new challenges

What should I tell my patient? Disclosure in anaesthesiology: difficulties, requirements, guidelines and suggestions

Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Research Integrity definitions and challenges

The Open Brain Consent: Informing research participants and obtaining consent to share brain imaging data

Investigation and Analysis of Informed Consent in Assisted Reproductive Technology Institutions