Environmental health research on hazards in the home and the duty to warn

Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) offer important benefits, such as generating evidence that is suited to inform real-world health care decisions and increasing research efficiency. However, PCTs also present ethical challenges. One such challenge involves the management of information that emerges in a PCT that is unrelated to the primary research question(s), yet may have implications for the individual patients, clinicians, or health care systems from whom or within which research data were collected. We term these findings as ?pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings,? or ?PCT-CFs?. In this article, we explore the ethical considerations associated with the identification, assessment, and management of PCT-CFs, and how these considerations may vary based upon the attributes of a specific PCT. Our purpose is to map the terrain of PCT-CFs to serve as a foundation for future scholarship as well as policy-making and to facilitate careful deliberation about actual cases as they occur in practice.

The Legal Implications of Report Back in Household Exposure Studies

BACKGROUND

Scientists conducting research into household air or dust pollution must decide whether, when, and how to disclose to study participants their individual results. A variety of considerations factor into this decision, but one factor that has not received attention until now is the possibility that study participants' receipt of their results might create legal duties under environmental, property, landlord-tenant, or other laws.

OBJECTIVES

This article examines relevant laws and regulations and explores the scope of participants' legal duties and the resulting legal and ethical consequences for researchers. Participants could be required in some situations to disclose the presence of certain chemicals when selling or renting their homes or to frequent visitors. The article discusses hypothetical case studies involving the reporting back of results regarding lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, and phthalates.

DISCUSSION

The potential legal duties of study participants have both ethical and legal implications for researchers. Issues include whether the legal consequences for participants should affect the decision whether to report back individual results, how researchers should disclose the legal risks to participants during the informed consent process, and whether researchers would be liable to study participants for legal or economic harm arising from reporting study results to them. The review provides recommendations for language that researchers could use in the informed consent process to disclose the legal risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should still report back to participants who want to see their results, but they should disclose the risks of obtaining the information as part of the informed consent process. Citation: Goho SA. 2016. The legal implications of report back in household exposure studies. Environ Health Perspect 124:1662-1670; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP187.

Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in Environmental Health Research

Environmental health researchers often need to make difficult decisions on how to protect privacy and confidentiality when they conduct research in the home or workplace. These dilemmas are different from those normally encountered in clinical research. Although protecting privacy and confidentiality is one of the most important principles of research involving human subjects, it can be overridden to prevent imminent harm to individuals or if required by law. Investigators should carefully consider the facts and circumstances and use good judgment when deciding whether to breach privacy or confidentiality.

The clinical investigator-subject relationship: a contextual approach

BACKGROUND

The nature of the relationship between a clinical investigator and a research subject has generated considerable debate because the investigator occupies two distinct roles: clinician and scientist. As a clinician, the investigator has duties to provide the patient with optimal care and undivided loyalty. As a scientist, the investigator has duties to follow the rules, procedures and methods described in the protocol.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this article, I present a contextual approach to the investigator-subject relationship. The extent of the investigator's duty to provide the patient/subject with clinical care can vary from one situation to the next, as a function of several factors, including: the research design, benefits and risks of the research; the subject's reasonable expectations, motivations, and vulnerabilities; the investigator's ability to benefit the subject; and the investigator's prior relationship with the subject. These and other factors need to be considered when determining the clinical investigator's obligations to provide clinical care to human research subjects. In some research contexts, the investigator has extensive clinical obligations to the patient/subject; in others, the investigator has minimal ones.

Environmental health research and the observer's dilemma

BACKGROUND

Environmental health researchers frequently study people in occupational, educational, recreational, or domestic settings who are exposed to hazardous agents.

OBJECTIVE/DISCUSSION

Deciding whether-and how-to inform research subjects about risks they face in their environment can be a challenging task for investigators. Because legal rules and professional guidelines do not cover this topic, investigators must carefully consider their ethical obligations in light of the facts and circumstances.

CONCLUSION

To navigate through this dilemma, investigators should consider the evidence for the risks, the nature of the risks, the usefulness of risk information to the subjects, and the effects on the study and community of informing subjects about risks.

Environmental Health Research Involving Human Subjects: Ethical Issues

This article reviews some of the ethical issues that arise in environmental health research with human subjects, such as minimizing risks to subjects, balancing benefits and risks in research, intentional exposure studies with human subjects, protecting third parties in research, informing subjects about environmental hazards, communicating health information to subjects, and protecting privacy and confidentiality.