What's trust got to do with research: why not accountability?

This paper explores the intricate dynamics of trust, power, and vulnerability in the relationship between researchers and study participants/communities in the field of bioethics. The power and knowledge imbalances between researchers and participants create a structural vulnerability for the latter. While trust-building is important between researchers and study participants/communities, the consenting process can be challenging, often burdening participants with power abrogation. Trust can be breached. The paper highlights the contractual nature of the research relationship and argues that trust alone cannot prevent exploitation as power imbalances and vulnerabilities persist. To protect participants, bioethics guidance documents promote accountability and ethical compliance. These documents uphold fairness in the researcher-participant relationship and safeguard the interests of socially vulnerable participants. The paper also highlights the role of shared decision-making and inclusive deliberation with diverse stakeholders and recommends that efforts should be made by researchers to clarify roles and responsibilities, while research regulatory agents should transform the research-participant relationship into a legal-based contract governed by accountability principles. While trust remains important, alternative mechanisms may be needed to ensure ethical research practices and protect the interests of participants and communities. Striking a balance between trust and accountability is crucial in this regard.

When Treatment Pressures Become Coercive: A Context-Sensitive Model of Informal Coercion in Mental Healthcare

Treatment pressures are communicative strategies that mental health professionals use to influence the decision-making of mental health service users and improve their adherence to recommended treatment. Szmukler and Appelbaum describe a spectrum of treatment pressures, which encompasses persuasion, interpersonal leverage, offers and threats, arguing that only a particular type of threat amounts to informal coercion. We contend that this account of informal coercion is insufficiently sensitive to context and fails to recognize the fundamental power imbalance in mental healthcare. Based on a set of counterexamples, we argue that what makes a proposal coercive is not whether service users will actually be made worse off if they reject the proposal, but rather whether they have the justified belief that this is the case. Whether this belief is justified depends on the presence of certain contextual factors, such as strong dependency on professionals and the salient possibility of formal coercion.

Ethical and legal requirements for vaccination against COVID-19

In the current context, there is an extraordinary interest of states in vaccinating the population to prevent Covid-19. In the Czech Republic, gene mRNA and vector DNA vaccines are approved only with conditional marketing authorization, for which a complete and long-term safety assessment is currently lacking. Vaccines show some potential risks, such as penetration of lipid nanoparticles into surrounding tissues, incorporation of DNA into the host genome, ADE syndrome, development of resistant mutations, myocarditis, pericarditis, and thromboembolic events. Since the level of antibodies after vaccination is soon decreasing, immunity after the disease persists longer, and the disease's fatality rate is very low, especially in adolescents, only voluntary vaccination is ethically acceptable, without any direct or indirect restrictions on the unvaccinated. The conclusion is in line with the principles of medical ethics of nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice.

Understanding voluntariness of consent in first-in-human cell therapy trials

Consensus about contents of voluntariness in informed consent is lacking. Core criteria for voluntary consent are needed to ensure voluntariness. This article outlines the multidimensionality of voluntariness and identifies what could reduce voluntariness, especially in first-in-human clinical trials involving cell therapies. In such trials, truly voluntary consent is especially important because: such trials may involve risk of serious harm, while in case of some diseases, eligible patients often have potentially effective therapeutic alternatives; patients considering participation in high-risk first-in-human trials may feel more desperate and some may be dependent on their caregivers, including those in the family; implanted cells cannot be taken out of the patient's body if the patient wants to withdraw.

Commentary 1: Research with Persons Under Involuntary Commitment-Ethical Issues Surrounding Competence and Voluntariness

In this case commentary, we analyze ethical concerns that were raised in response to an interview with a woman with bipolar disorder who was under involuntary commitment. We focus on competence and voluntariness as two prerequisites for valid informed consent. We recommend that judgments of competence be based on whether prospective research participants sufficiently possess certain decision-making abilities. Based on this functional approach, we argue that manic symptoms need not undermine competence and that, even if we were to assume that the research participant became incompetent during the interview, this would not invalidate her consent retroactively. It would, however, compromise her ability to revoke her consent. We furthermore show that obtaining additional proxy consent for research participation may compromise the autonomy of service users who are competent to consent. Then we turn to the issue of voluntariness. Arguing that neither the great strength nor the external etiology of a desire compromises voluntariness, we propose that the voluntariness of a decision instead depends on whether the decision-maker endorses it on reflection. The researchers disclosed that prospective research participants' decision about study participation would have no influence on the duration of the commitment or the quality of care. We contend that because of this neither coercion nor undue influence was exerted in the informed consent process. Nevertheless, there is an increased likelihood of perceived coercion and undue influence under conditions of involuntary commitment, and we close by suggesting some safeguards to prevent this.

Exploring Understanding of "Understanding": The Paradigm Case of Biobank Consent Comprehension

Data documenting poor understanding among research participants and real-time efforts to assess comprehension in large-scale studies are focusing new attention on informed consent comprehension. Within the context of biobanking consent, we previously convened a multidisciplinary panel to reach consensus about what information must be understood for a prospective participant's consent to be considered valid. Subsequently, we presented them with data from another study showing that many U.S. adults would fail to comprehend the information the panel had deemed essential. When asked to evaluate the importance of the information again, panelists' opinions shifted dramatically in the direction of requiring that less information be understood. Follow-up interviews indicated significant uncertainty about defining a threshold of understanding and what should happen when prospective participants are unable to grasp key information. These findings have important implications for urgently needed discussion of whether consent comprehension is an ethical requirement or an ethical aspiration.

Children in Social Research: Do Higher Payments Encourage Participation in Riskier Studies?

The MESSI (Managing Ethical Studies on Sensitive Issues) study used hypothetical scenarios, presented via a brief online survey, to explore whether payment amounts influenced Australian children and young people to participate in social research of different sensitivity. They were more likely to participate in the lower sensitivity study than in the higher at all payment levels (A$200 prize draw, no payment, $30, or $100). Offering payments to children and young people increased the likelihood that they would agree to participate in the studies and, in general, the higher the payments, the higher the likelihood of their participating. No evidence of undue influence was detected: payments can be used to increase the participation of children and young people in research without concerns of undue influence on their behavior in the face of relatively risky research. When considering the level of payment, however, the overriding consideration should be the level of risk to the children and young people.

Commentary on Undue Influence Provisions under Oregon Death with Dignity Act and California's End of Life Option Act

This article considers the requirements to assess for elements of undue influence under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (2013) and California's recently assented to End of Life Option Act (2015). Acting voluntarily, that is free from undue influence, is critical to the operation of these statutes. Indeed, assisted dying largely draws its legitimacy from the requirement that voluntariness is well protected. However, this article argues that the requirements under these statutes fall short of adequately protecting a voluntary decision. This article discusses the provisions concerning voluntariness and undue influence under these two statutes, highlighting ostensible limitations therein. Basic recommendations for improvement are proffered. This article concludes by arguing that Australia should not draw inspiration from these statutory provisions because they fail to protect freedom of choice in a meaningful way.

Voluntary Informed Consent in Paediatric Oncology Research

In paediatric oncology, research and treatments are often closely combined, which may compromise voluntary informed consent of parents. We identified two key scenarios in which voluntary informed consent for paediatric oncology studies is potentially compromised due to the intertwinement of research and care. The first scenario is inclusion by the treating paediatric oncologist, the second scenario concerns treatments confined to the research context. In this article we examine whether voluntary informed consent of parents for research is compromised in these two scenarios, and if so whether this is also morally problematic. For this, we employ the account of voluntary consent from Nelson and colleagues, who assert that voluntary consent requires substantial freedom from controlling influences. We argue that, in the absence of persuasion or manipulation, inclusion by the treating physician does not compromise voluntariness. However, it may function as a risk factor for controlling influence as it narrows the scope within which parents make decisions. Furthermore, physician appeal to reciprocity is not controlling as it constitutes persuasion. In addition, framing information is a form of informational manipulation and constitutes a controlling influence. In the second scenario, treatments confined to the research context qualify as controlling if the available options are restricted through manipulation of options. Although none of the influences is morally problematic in itself, a combination of influences may create morally problematic instances of involuntary informed consent. Therefore, safeguards should be implemented to establish an optimal environment for parents to provide voluntary informed consent in an integrated research-care context.

Voluntariness of consent to HIV clinical research: A conceptual and empirical pilot study

Obtaining voluntary informed consent for research participation is an ethical imperative, yet there appears to be little consensus regarding what constitutes a voluntary consent decision. An instrument to assess influences on participants' consent decision and perceived voluntariness was developed and piloted in two South African HIV clinical trials. The pilot study found high levels of perceived voluntariness. The feeling of having no choice but to participate was significantly associated with lower perceived voluntariness. Overall the data suggest that it is possible to obtain voluntary and valid consent for research participants in ethically complex HIV clinical trials in a developing country context.

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research

BACKGROUND

Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet approaching parents at this difficult time raises challenges for the obtaining of valid informed consent to such research. This study asked: what light does the empirical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to the obtaining of informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?

METHODS

A systematic search identified 49 studies. Analysis began by applying philosophical frameworks which were then refined in light of the concepts emerging from empirical studies to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.

RESULTS

Between them, studies addressed the attitudes of both parents and clinicians concerning consent in neonatal trials; the validity of the consent process in the neonatal research context; and different possible methods of obtaining consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a variety of opinions among parents and clinicians there is a strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give or decline consent for neonatal participation in trials. However, none of the range of existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory. A significant gap is evaluation of the widespread practice of emergency 'assent', in which parents assent or refuse their baby's participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to ongoing participation and follow-up. Emergency assent has not been evaluated for its acceptability, how such a process would deal with bad outcomes such as neonatal death between assent and consent, or the extent to which late parental refusal might bias results. This review of a large number of empirical papers, while not making fundamental changes, has refined and developed the conceptual framework from philosophy for examining informed consent in this context.

Impact of gender on the decision to participate in a clinical trial: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

In order for Informed Consent to be ethical and valid each clinical trial participant must be able to make a voluntary decision to participate, free from pressure or coercion. Nonetheless, many factors may influence the decision reached, and such influences may be different for male and female volunteers. Being aware of these differences may help researches develop better processes for obtaining consent that safeguard the right of autonomy for all participants. The goal of this study was to evaluate potential gender-based differences in the factors influencing clinical trial participation.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Northeast region of Minas Gerais, Brazil, in October 2011. A structured questionnaire was administered to 143 volunteers (48 male, 95 female) screened for participation in a clinical study of an investigational functional food with potential anthelminthic properties. Answers regarding their decision to participate in the study were compared, by gender, using chi-square and Mann Whitney tests. Odds ratios (OR) was used to measure association.

RESULTS

A majority of subjects (58% of males, 59% of females) listed the desire to collaborate with the development of a product against parasitic worms as their main reason for participation. Females were significantly more likely to report a decision influenced by friends, family, or researchers (OR 3.14, 3.45, and 3.46 respectively, p < 0.005). Females were also significantly more likely to report a decision influenced by general altruistic considerations (OR 8.45, p < 0.005). There was no difference, by gender, in the report of decisions influenced by informational meetings, understanding of the disease, or the availability of medical treatments or exams. There was also no difference in knowledge of the rights of research participants.

CONCLUSION

Study results indicate that there is a strong difference between male and female participants regarding social influences on the decision to participate in clinical research. Further research into the impact this may have on autonomy is warranted.

Developing an index to measure the voluntariness of consent to research

The goals of the current study were to expand the content domain and further validate the Coercion Assessment Scale (CAS), a measure of perceived coercion for criminally involved substance abusers being recruited into research. Unlike the few existing measures of this construct, the CAS identifies specific external sources of pressure that may influence one's decision to participate. In Phase 1, we conducted focus groups with criminal justice clients and stakeholders to expand the instrument by identifying additional sources of pressure. In Phase 2, we evaluated the expanded measure (i.e., endorsement rates, reliability, validity) in an ongoing research trial. Results identified new sources of pressure and provided evidence supporting the CAS's utility and reliability over time as well as convergent and discriminative validity.

Voluntary consent: why a value-neutral concept won't work

Some maintain that voluntariness is a value-neutral concept. On that view, someone acts involuntarily if subject to a controlling influence or has no acceptable alternatives. I argue that a value-neutral conception of voluntariness cannot explain when and why consent is invalid and that we need a moralized account of voluntariness. On that view, most concerns about the voluntariness of consent to participate in research are not well founded.

The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent

BACKGROUND

The decision to participate in a research intervention or to undergo medical treatment should be both informed and voluntary.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to develop an instrument to measure the perceived voluntariness of parents making decisions for their seriously ill children.

METHODS

A total of 219 parents completed questionnaires within 10 days of making such a decision at a large, urban tertiary care hospital for children. Parents were presented with an experimental form of the Decision Making Control Instrument (DMCI), a measure of the perception of voluntariness. Data obtained from the 28-item form were analyzed using a combination of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic techniques.

RESULTS

The 28 items were reduced to 9 items representing 3 oblique dimensions: Self-Control, Absence of Control, and Others' Control. The hypothesis that the 3-factor covariance structure of our model was consistent with that of the data was supported. Internal consistency for the scale as a whole was high (0.83); internal consistency for the subscales ranged from 0.68 to 0.87. DMCI scores were associated with measures of affect, trust, and decision self-efficacy, supporting the construct validity of the new instrument.

CONCLUSION

The DMCI is an important new tool that can be used to inform our understanding of the voluntariness of treatment and research decisions in medical settings.