Parents' attitudes towards and perceptions of involving minors in medical research from the Japanese perspective

Involvement and Autonomy of Minors in Medical Settings: Perceptions of Children Undergoing Surgery and Parents

Informed consent presupposes competence and represents a formal decision by an informed person who has the legal capacity to accept medical action or participate in research. Our aim was to analyze the perceptions of minors and their parents about the age at which they consider that a minor is competent for making health decisions. A descriptive observational study was carried out in 302 minors between 12 and 17 years of age undergoing elective surgery, and 302 parents (range 30 to 62 years). Two semistructured questionnaires were designed, one for the minors and the other, for the parents. A total of 20.1% of minors and 31.1% of parents believe that patients should not make decisions related to their health until they are 18 years old. A total of 74.9% of the minors surveyed consider that from 16 years of age, the minor is empowered to make decisions. In parents, this percentage is 60%. In the pediatric setting, each case and situation must be examined individually to determine if the minor meets the condition of maturity to decide. The ideal is to promote the minor's participation in decision-making, giving them the opportunity to participate in the process in a manner appropriate to their capacity.

Developing a Family Resource: Considerations for Family Member Research Participation

When individuals participate in health care research, the choice often affects the entire family. Researchers are responsible for protecting participants and minimizing any burdens the research may place on them. Resources to educate potential study participants about these issues from a family perspective are lacking. A family-focused, evidence-based resource was created for individuals and families to prompt discussion prior to their consenting to enrollment in research. The resource includes key relevant questions to consider related to their study participation and was revised based on input from family nurse scientists and a hospital-based family advisory group. This resource raises awareness of the importance of employing a family lens when designing research and during the recruitment and enrollment of participants. Adopting a family lens in health care research will support the participant's ability to make an informed choice regarding participation and may ultimately enhance the experience of participants and their families and study outcomes.

Assent in Pediatric Critical Care Research: A Cross-Sectional Stakeholder Survey of Canadian Research Ethics Boards, Research Coordinators, Pediatric Critical Care Researchers, and Nurses

OBJECTIVES

Survey of four stakeholder groups involved in defining and obtaining assent for research in Canadian PICUs to better understand their perspectives and perceived barriers to assent.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Fourteen tertiary-care pediatric hospitals in Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Research Ethics Board Chairs, pediatric critical care nurses, research coordinators, and researchers.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 193 participants responded. Thirty-seven percent (59/159) thought it was "Never/Almost Never" (59/159, 37%) feasible to obtain assent during the first 48 hours of PICU admission, and 112 of 170 (66%) indicated there are unique barriers to assent at the time of enrollment in PICU studies. Asking children for assent was most frequently rated as Important/Very Important for interviews/focus groups with the child (138/180, 77%), blood sample collection with a needle poke for research (137/178, 77%), and studies involving genetic testing with results communicated to the child/legal guardian (134/180, 74%). In two scenarios where a child and legal guardian disagreed about study participation, most respondents indicated that whether the child should still be enrolled would depend on the patient's age (34-36%), and/or the risk of the study (24-28%). There was a lack of consensus over how the assent process should be operationalized, and when and for how long children should be followed to seek assent for ongoing study participation. Most stakeholders (117/158, 74%) thought that children should have the opportunity to decide if their samples could stay in a biobank once they are old enough to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an overall lack of consensus on the feasibility of, and challenges associated with, obtaining assent at the time of study enrollment and on how key aspects of the assent process should be operationalized in the PICU. This highlights the need for guidelines to clarify the assent process in pediatric critical care research.

In the name of the family? Against parents' refusal to disclose prognostic information to children

Parents frequently attempt to shield their children from distressing prognostic information. Pediatric oncology providers sometimes follow parental request for non-disclosure of prognostic information to children, invoking what we call the stability of the family argument. They believe that if they inform the child about terminal prognosis despite parental wishes, cohesion and family structure will be severely hampered. In this paper, we argue against parental request for non-disclosure. Firstly, we present the stability of the family argument in more detail. We, then, set out the (conceptual, legal, systemic) entitativity of the family and the kind of value the stability of the family argument assumes, before we set on to critically evaluate the argument. Our analysis shows that disclosure of prognostic information to children does not necessarily destabilize the family to a greater extent than non-disclosure. In fact, a systemic perspective suggests that mediated disclosure is more likely to result in a (long-term) stability of the family than non-disclosure. It is in the interest of the family to resist the initial aversive reaction to delivering bad news. In the final part, we draw a set of recommendations on how to facilitate decision-making in face of parental request for non-disclosure.

Study of Obtaining Informed Consent in Pediatric Wards from the Viewpoint of Physicians and Children’s Parents

Background: Obtaining informed consent for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is of great moral and legal importance, which is more important in the field of pediatrics due to its specific issues. Objectives: Obtaining informed consent in the pediatric field is specific because of many factors, including the age of the patients and the necessity of obtaining consent from parents or legal guardians. This study aimed to evaluate the process of obtaining informed consent from the viewpoint of substitute decision-makers (parents or guardians) and physicians. Attention to the differences between the views of these two groups by establishing appropriate and correct communication skills between them can lead to greater satisfaction and increased effectiveness of treatments. Methods: In this descriptive study, the data were collected through questionnaires completed by 188 parents and 23 physicians. Finally, the statistical analysis was conducted using the one-sample t test method in SPSS 16. Results: In 96.3% of the cases, parents believed that where the patient, their relatives, and the medical team disagreed about the kind of treatment, the final decision was made by the medical team. One-third of them did not receive enough information or received no information at all. Informing parents about other possible treatments, complications of the procedures, considering the patients and their relatives’ opinions for the final decision, informing the child about his/her disease and treatment plans, and informing the parents about the possible outcomes were not in the favorable range. Physicians believed that decision about the treatment was made based on the opinion of the parents and the clinical committee, and only in 3.4% of the cases, their opinion was the basis for decision-making. Conclusions: The results showed that there was a gap between the parents and physicians’ opinions about informed consent, as the physicians believed that they act as the patients’ parents wish and the parents believed that their opinion played no important role in the final decision regarding the health of their children. Thus, it seems necessary to institutionalize the culture of participatory decision-making by physicians and parents in decisions related to the diagnosis and treatment of children, and more emphasis should be placed on establishing the right relationship between treatment staff and patients and their relatives.

Understanding the child-doctor relationship in research participation: a qualitative study

Background

Children have reported that one reason for participating in research is to help their doctor. This is potentially harmful if associated with coercive consent but might be beneficial for recruitment. We aimed to explore children’s perceptions of the child-doctor relationship in research.

Methods

This is a multicenter qualitative study with semi structured interviews performed between 2010 and 2011 (United Kingdom) and 2017–2019 (the Netherlands). Interviews took place nationwide at children’s homes. We performed a secondary analysis of the two datasets, combining an amplified analysis aimed to enlarge our dataset, and a supplementary analysis, which is a more in-depth investigation of emergent themes that were not fully addressed in the original studies. All participants had been involved in decisions about research participation, either as healthy volunteers, or as patients. Recruitment was aimed for a purposive maximum variation sample, and continued until data saturation occurred. We have studied how children perceived the child-doctor relationship in research. Interviews were audiotaped or videotaped, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti software.

Results

In total, 52 children were recruited aged 9 to 18, 29 in the United Kingdom and 23 in the Netherlands. Children’s decision-making depended strongly on support by research professionals, both in giving consent and during participation. Often, their treating physician was involved in the research process. Familiarity and trust were important and related to the extent to which children thought doctors understood their situation, were medically competent, showed support and care, and gave priority to the individual child’s safety. A trusting relationship led to a feeling of mutuality and enhanced children’s confidence. This resulted in improving their experiences throughout the entire research process. None of the participants reported that they felt compelled to participate in the research.

Conclusions

The child-doctor relationship in pediatric research should be characterized by familiarity and trust. This does not compromise children’s voluntary decision but enhances children’s confidence and might result in a feeling of mutuality. By addressing the participation of children as an iterative process during which treatment and research go hand in hand, the recruitment and participation of children in research can be improved.