Ethical considerations of research involving minorities, the poorly educated and/or low-income populations

The effectiveness of handout assisted versus verbal consent on post-operative recall and understanding - A randomized control study

BACKGROUND

Consent is an important component of surgical care. Poorly attempted consent bears significant ethical and legal implications. We assessed the effectiveness of handouts in improving postoperative consent understanding and recall compared to standard verbal consent during laparoscopic cholecystectomy as a tool that may improve information retention and leads to better treatment satisfaction.

METHODS

This is a prospective block randomized, non-blinded study conducted at a single tertiary hospital. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between August 2017 and October 2018 were recruited and randomized into Handout Assisted Consent (HC) and Verbal Consent (VC) group. The HC group was given an adjunct handout on laparoscopic cholecystectomy during consent process in addition to the standard verbal consent. A validated open-ended verbal understanding and recall questionnaire was administered to all patients in both groups at Day 1, 30 and 90 after surgery. Patient satisfaction of the consent process was evaluated with Likert scale.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients were enrolled, 41 patients and 38 patients in VC and HC groups respectively. Level of understanding among patients were equal and consistent across time in both groups (P > 0.05). There was significant decline (P < 0.0001) for both groups in ability to recall information between Day 1 to Day 30 and Day 30 to Day 90. A slightly higher satisfaction rate was found among patients that received HC (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There is good consistent understanding of the surgery in both groups. However, recall of specific surgical consent items decreased significantly over time in both groups. Handouts may have increased satisfaction among patients but did not improve recall in this preliminary study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

MREC No.:201783-5468.

An exploration of ethical issues in research in children's health and the environment

The consideration of ethical issues relating to pediatric environmental health is a recent phenomenon. Discussions of biomedical ethics, research on children, and environmental health research have a longer history. In the late 1990s, researchers at the Kennedy Krieger Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, undertook a study to compare the effectiveness of several methods of reducing lead risk in housing. In a preliminary finding in the case of Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., a Maryland court questioned the ethics of performing research on children when there is no prospect of direct benefit to those children and whether parents can consent to such research. This case dramatically raised the profile of ethical issues among the pediatric environmental health research community. To broaden the discussion of these issues and in response to the Kennedy-Krieger case, the Children's Environmental Health Network held a working meeting on 5 and 6 March 2004 to explore this topic. The articles in this mini-monograph were prepared by the authors as a result of the workshop and represent their opinions. This article is an introduction to the workshop and a summary of the articles to follow.

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

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