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

BackgroundConducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet, approaching the parents of these infants at such a difficult time raises challenges to obtaining valid informed consent for such research. In this study, we asked, What light does the analytical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to obtaining informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?MethodsIn a systematic search, we identified 30 studies. We began our analysis by applying philosophical frameworks, which were then refined as concepts emerged from the analytical studies, to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.ResultsBetween them, the studies addressed four themes. The first three were the ethical basis for parental informed consent for neonatal and/or perinatal research, the validity of parental consent in this context, and the range of possible options in methods for gaining consent. The last was the issue of risk and the possibility of a double-standard or asymmetry in the current approaches to the requirement for consent for research and consent for clinical treatment.ConclusionsIn addressing these issues, the analysed studies showed that, whilst there are a variety of possible defences for seeking parental ‘consent’ to neonatal and/or perinatal clinical trials, these are all consistent with the strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give (or decline) consent for such research. So far as the method of obtaining consent is concerned, none of the existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory, and there are philosophical reasons for supposing that at least some parents will fail to give valid consent in a neonatal context. Furthermore, in giving parental ‘consent’ in a perinatal context, parents are authorising infant participation, not giving ‘proxy consent’. Finally, there are reasons for giving weight to both parental ‘consent’ and the infant’s best interests in both research and clinical treatment. However, there are also reasons to treat these factors differently in the two contexts, and this may be partly due to the differing relevance of risk in each case. A significant gap is the lack of any detailed discussion of a process of emergency and/or urgent ‘assent’, in which parents assent or refuse their baby’s participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to continuing participation and follow-up.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1562-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Informed consent and collaborative research: perspectives from the developing world

Introduction: Informed consent has been recognized as an important component of research protocols and procedures of disclosure and consent in collaborative research have been criticized, as they may not be in keeping with cultural norms of developing countries. This study, which is part of a larger project funded by the United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, explores the opinions of developing country researchers regarding informed consent in collaborative research. Methods: A survey of developing country researchers, involved in human subject research, was conducted by distributing a questionnaire with 169 questions, which included questions relating to informed consent. In addition, six focus group discussions, eight in-depth interviews and 78 responses to open-ended questions in the questionnaire provided qualitative data. Results: 203 surveys were considered complete and were included in the analysis. Written consent was not used by nearly 40% of the researchers in their most recent studies. A large proportion of respondents recommended that human subject regulations should allow more flexibility in ways of documenting informed consent. 84% of researchers agreed that a mechanism to measure understanding should be incorporated in research studies as part of the process of informed consent. Discussion: This paper is an empirical step in highlighting the ethical issues concerning disclosure. Health researchers in developing countries are well aware of the importance of consent in health research, and equally value the significance of educating human subjects regarding study protocols and associated risks and benefits. However, respondents emphasize the need for modifying ethical regulations in collaborative research.     

PROCESS FOR OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT: WOMEN’S OPINIONS

In Brazil, every study involving human beings is required to produce an informed consent form that must be signed by study participants: this is stated in Resolution 196/96. 1 Consent must be obtained through a specific structured process. Objective: To present the opinions of women regarding how the process of obtaining informed consent should be conducted when women are invited to participate in studies on contraceptive methods. Subjects and Methods: Eight focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 51 women living in the metropolitan region of Campinas. The women involved in the study were either participating in a clinical trial in the area of women’s health or had participated in such a trial in the previous 12 months. A thematic guide was used to conduct the focus group discussions; the discussions were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Results: In general, the person who invites a woman to participate in a study should be a member of the research team but not the principal investigator. Information relating to the study should be given orally and in writing, both individually and in the group setting. Study volunteers should be informed about, among other things, the risks, possible side effects and discomforts, including long‐term effects. The use of audiovisual aids to provide information was suggested. Conclusion: The process for obtaining informed consent was seen as a means of establishing a relationship between the volunteers and the investigator/research team. The information that the study participants expected to be given coincides with the requirements established under Resolution 196/96. The use of audiovisual aids would improve understanding of the information provided.     

Best Practice Guidelines on Informed Consent for Weight Loss Surgery Patients

Objective: To provide evidence‐based guidelines on informed consent and the education that underlies it for legally competent, severely obese weight loss surgery (WLS) patients. Research Methods and Procedures: We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature published on MEDLINE between 1984 and 2004. Three articles focused on informed consent for WLS; none was based on empirical studies. We summarized each paper and assigned evidence categories according to a grading system derived from established evidence‐based models. We also relied on informed consent and educational materials from six WLS programs in Massachusetts. All evidence is Category D. Recommendations were based on a review of the available literature, informed consent materials from WLS programs, and expert opinion. Results: This Task Group found that the informed consent process contributes to long‐term outcome in multiple ways but is governed by limited legal requirements. We focused our report on the legal and ethical issues related to informed consent, i.e., disclosure vs. comprehension. Recommendations centered on the importance of assessing patient comprehension of informed consent materials, the content of those materials, and the use of active teaching/learning techniques to promote understanding. Discussion: Although demonstrated comprehension is not a legal requirement for informed consent in Massachusetts or other states, the members of this Task Group found that the best interests of WLS patients, providers, and facilities are served when clinicians engage patients in active learning and collaborative decision making.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 2. Disclosure.

In the context of patient consent, "disclosure" refers to the provision of relevant information by the clinician and its comprehension by the patient. Both elements are necessary for valid consent. Disclosure should inform the patient adequately about the treatment and its expected effects, relevant alternative options and their benefits and risks, and the consequences of declining or delaying treatment. The clinician''s goal is to disclose information that a reasonable person in the patient''s position would need in order to make an informed decision. Therefore, clinicians may need to consider how the proposed treatment (and other options) might affect the patient''s employment, finances, family life and other personal concerns. Clinicians may also need to be sensitive to cultural and religious beliefs that can affect disclosure.     

Parental refusal of life-saving treatments for adolescents: Chinese familism in medical decision-making re-visited

This paper reports two cases in Hong Kong involving two native Chinese adolescent cancer patients (APs) who were denied their rights to consent to necessary treatments refused by their parents, resulting in serious harm. We argue that the dynamics of the 'AP-physician-family-relationship' and the dominant role Chinese families play in medical decision-making (MDM) are best understood in terms of the tendency to hierarchy and parental authoritarianism in traditional Confucianism. This ethic has been confirmed and endorsed by various Chinese writers from Mainland China and Hong Kong. Rather than giving an unqualified endorsement to this ethic, based more on cultural sentimentalism than rational moral reasoning, we warn that a strong familism in MDM, which deprives 'weak' family members of rights, represents the less desirable elements of this tradition, against which healthcare professionals working in this cultural milieu need to safeguard. Specifically for APs, we suggest that parental authority and family integrity should be re-interpreted in terms of parental responsibility and the enhancement of children's interests respectively, as done in the West. This implies that when parents refuse to consent to necessary treatment and deny their adolescent children's right to consent, doctors, as the only remaining advocates of the APs' interest, have the duty to inform the state, which can override parental refusal to enable the doctors to fulfill their professional and moral obligations. In so doing the state exercises its 'parens patriae' power to defend the defenseless in society and the integrity of the medical profession.     

Best Practice Updates for Informed Consent and Patient Education in Weight Loss Surgery

To update evidence‐based best practice guidelines for obtaining informed consent from weight loss surgery (WLS) patients, with an emphasis on appropriate content and communications approaches that might enhance patient understanding of the information, we performed a systematic search of English‐language literature published between April 2004 and May 2007 in MEDLINE and the Cochrane database. Keywords included WLS and informed consent, comprehension, health literacy, and patient education; and WLS and outcomes, risk, patient safety management, and effectiveness. Recommendations are based on the most current literature and the consensus of the expert panel; they were graded according to systems used in established evidence‐based models. We identified over 120 titles, 38 of which were reviewed in detail. Evidence suggests that WLS outcomes, including long‐term rates of relapse, vary by procedure. For some weight loss surgeries, long‐term outcomes may not be known. Risks also vary by patient and provider characteristics. Informed consent should incorporate realistic projections of the short‐ and long‐term risks, benefits, and consequences of surgery, as well as alternatives to WLS. For consent to be informed, the education process should continue until the patient demonstrates comprehension of all relevant material and concepts. Confirmation of comprehension can protect patients engaged in the process of consent for WLS. Future research should focus on the outcomes and consequences of WLS, and different approaches that facilitate patient understanding of, and decision making about, WLS.     

Infants,Children, and Informed Consent

Obtaining informed consent for non-therapeutic experimentation on infants and children has ethical and legal implications that cause great controversy. There is some danger that worthy research will be inhibited if current ethical codes are interpreted too strictly, yet infants, children, and other vulnerable groups clearly must be protected from exploitation as research subjects. It is suggested that permission from parents coupled with integrity of the investigator will remain the child''s best protection, but several additional protective mechanisms are available and should be used. Some guidelines for non-therapeutic research are suggested which should not only provide adequate protection for infants and young children involved in research projects, but allow investigators reasonable freedom to prosecute worthy research vital to continued improvements in child care.     

Erosion of informed consent in U.S. research

This paper evaluates four recent randomized clinical trials in which the informed consent of participants was either not sought at all, or else was conducted with critical information missing from the consent documents. As these studies have been taking place, various proposals to conduct randomized clinical trials without consent have been appearing in the medical literature. Some of the explanations offered for why it is appropriate to bypass consent or disclosure requirements appear to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of applicable government regulations and even the research enterprise. Others are the result of conceptual disagreements about the importance and application of traditional research ethics norms to ‘comparative effectiveness research’ and modern research environments. Common among these explanations, however, is a failure to appreciate when a research intervention, rather than merely an observation or review of data, is taking place. Review committees and investigators are failing to see, or choosing to ignore, interventions in the lives of research subjects. When these studies have come to light, government agencies with oversight authority have done little or backed down. Prestigious medical journals have published research results knowing that the required consent was not obtained, or they have stood by the published studies even after the inadequacy of consent is discovered. This article critically examines this erosion of consent in theory and practice and calls for restoring the requirement of informed consent to its proper place as a priority in human subjects research.     

Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer.

Methods of obtaining informed consent have evolved differently in Western countries without substantive information on the impact of these different practices on the patients. A randomised study was performed to compare two commonly adopted methods of seeking consent to randomised treatment: an individual approach at the discretion of each doctor and a uniform policy of total disclosure of all relevant information. The impact of both consent procedures on the patient''s understanding and anxiety levels and on the doctor-patient relationship was assessed by means of a questionnaire given soon after the consent interview. Fifty seven patients were assigned at random to two groups: to 29 patients an individual approach to seeking consent was adopted and to 28 patients all relevant information was given. Seven patients refused consent to randomised treatment, with slightly more refusals by patients in the total disclosure group (5 v 2, p = 0.25). The main effects of total disclosure of all information compared with an individual approach to seeking consent were: a better understanding of treatment and side effects and of research aspects of the treatments; less willingness to agree to randomised treatment; and increased anxiety. No significant differences were found in patients'' perceptions of the doctor-patient relationship. A repeat questionnaire given three to four weeks later no longer showed significant differences between the two groups.     

Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent?

The Dutch rules governing neonatal euthanasia, known as the Groningen Protocol, require parental consent for severely disabled infants with poor prognoses to have their lives terminated. This paper questions whether parental consent should be dispositive in such cases, and argues that the potential suffering of the neonate or pediatric patient should be the decisive factor under such unfortunate circumstances.     

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.     

Child assent and parental permission for clinical research--some considerations

The success of our future efforts to understand and improve the ethics of pediatric informed consent may depend, in large measure, on our willingness and ability to conceive of child assent and parental permission as joint, mutually affective processes. Given current trends, our empirical efforts may need to unfold at the interface of assent and parental permission, rather than exclusively or even primarily in one domain or the other. This shift will permit researchers to identify those areas in which the two mechanisms function in concert--in the best interests of patients, parents, and clinicians--and those in which they do not. Targeting these problematic areas for intervention and improvement may result in a more effective consent process for clinical research involving minors.     

Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with malaria parasites: Perceptions and experiences of participants and other stakeholders in a Kenyan-based malaria infection study

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies involve the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with malaria parasites under controlled conditions to study immune responses and/or test drug or vaccine efficacy. An empirical ethics study was embedded in a CHMI study at a Kenyan research programme to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of deliberate infection and moral implications of these. Data for this qualitative study were collected through focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and non-participant observation. Sixty-nine participants were involved, including CHMI study volunteers, community representatives and research staff. Data were managed using QSR Nvivo 10 and analysed using an inductive-deductive approach, guided by ethics literature. CHMI volunteers had reasonable understanding of the study procedures. Decisions to join were influenced by study incentives, trust in the research institution, their assessment of associated burdens and motivation to support malaria vaccine development. However, deliberate malaria infection was a highly unusual research strategy for volunteers, community representatives and some study staff. Volunteers’ experiences of physical, emotional and social burdens or harms were often greater than anticipated initially, and fluctuated over time, related to specific procedures and events. Although unlikely to deter volunteers' participation in similar studies in furture, we argue that the dissonance between level of understanding of the burdens involved and actual experiences are morally relevant in relation to community engagement, informed consent processes, and ongoing support for volunteers and research staff. We further argue that ethics oversight of CHMI studies should take account of these issues in deciding whether consent, engagement and the balance of benefits and harms are reasonable in a given context.     

Expectation versus Reality: The Impact of Utility on Emotional Outcomes after Returning Individualized Genetic Research Results in Pediatric Rare Disease Research,a Qualitative Interview Study

PurposeMuch information on parental perspectives on the return of individual research results (IRR) in pediatric genomic research is based on hypothetical rather than actual IRR. Our aim was to understand how the expected utility to parents who received IRR on their child from a genetic research study compared to the actual utility of the IRR received.MethodsWe conducted individual telephone interviews with parents who received IRR on their child through participation in the Manton Center for Orphan Disease Research Gene Discovery Core (GDC) at Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH).ResultsFive themes emerged around the utility that parents expected and actually received from IRR: predictability, management, family planning, finding answers, and helping science and/or families. Parents expressing negative or mixed emotions after IRR return were those who did not receive the utility they expected from the IRR. Conversely, parents who expressed positive emotions were those who received as much or greater utility than expected.ConclusionsDiscrepancies between expected and actual utility of IRR affect the experiences of parents and families enrolled in genetic research studies. An informed consent process that fosters realistic expectations between researchers and participants may help to minimize any negative impact on parents and families.     

Addressing Parental Vaccine Concerns: Engagement,Balance, and Timing

The recent United States measles epidemic has sparked another contentious national discussion about childhood vaccination. A growing number of parents are expressing concerns about the safety of vaccines, often fueled by misinformation from the internet, books, and other nonmedical sources. Many of these concerned parents are choosing to refuse or delay childhood vaccines, placing their children and surrounding communities at risk for serious diseases that are nearly 100% preventable with vaccination. Between 10% and 15% of parents are asking physicians to space out the timing of vaccines, which often poses an ethical dilemma for physicians. This trend reflects a tension between personal liberty and public health, as parents fight to control the decisions that affect the health of their children and public health officials strive to maintain high immunization rates to prevent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Interventions to address this emerging public health issue are needed. We describe a framework by which web-based interventions can be used to help parents make evidence-based decisions about childhood vaccinations.

About the Author

Jason Glanz, PhD, is an epidemiologist and senior research investigator at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Institute for Health Research. He is also an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health. Dr. Glanz’s research focuses on vaccine safety and vaccine hesitancy. Dr. Glanz is currently a principal investigator with the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded project that examines the safety of vaccines. Dr. Glanz also leads research efforts to develop risk communication strategies to help reduce parental vaccination concerns.     

Informed consent in clinical research at a general hospital in Mexico: opinions of the investigators

In Mexico informed consent is a legal requirement that ensures that patients who are invited to participate in clinical trials are provided with all the information needed to decide whether to participate, or not, in a research protocol. To improve our understanding of the problems physicians in developing countries encounter, when obtaining informed consent (IC), we examined their opinion on the importance of IC in clinical research, the quantity and quality of the information provided to the participant, and the conditions in which the IC is obtained. Investigators considered that IC was useful to the patients, providing information that helped the patient to make a decision about his/her participation. Nevertheless, they felt that for some aspects of the research, like drug development in general, the use of placebos, and the randomization process, many of the patients were not capable of fully understanding the information provided, referring to the complexity of the information and illiteracy as the main reasons. Many investigators were not acquainted with some of the guidelines established in the Mexican General Law of Health,(1) 36% of them admitting to not having completed their IC letters. Most investigators gave only minutes to the patient to make a decision and 20% of ICs were obtained while the patient was hospitalized. Except for one investigator, all of them considered that specific training in medical ethics would be useful for the daily clinical work.     

Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives

It is unclear how genomic incidental finding (GIF) prospects should be addressed in informed consent processes. An exploratory study on this topic was conducted with 34 purposively sampled Chairs of institutional review boards (IRBs) at centers conducting genome-wide association studies. Most Chairs (96%) reported no knowledge of local IRB requirements regarding GIFs and informed consent. Chairs suggested consent processes should address the prospect of, and study disclosure policy on, GIFs; GIF management and follow-up; potential clinical significance of GIFs; potential risks of GIF disclosure; an opportunity for participants to opt out of GIF disclosure; and duration of the researcher's duty to disclose GIFs. Chairs were concerned about participant disclosure preferences changing over time; inherent limitations in determining the scope and accuracy of claims about GIFs; and making consent processes longer and more complex. IRB Chair and other stakeholder perspectives can help advance informed consent efforts to accommodate GIF prospects.     

The Problem of Biased Data and Potential Solutions for Health and Environmental Assessments

The utility and credibility of environmental assessments depend on the use of unbiased data. However, it is increasingly clear that, despite peer review, much of the scientific literature is biased. Sources of bias include publication practices, research design and implementation, funding influences, investigator expectations, statistical methods, confounding, suppression, and fraud. Assessors can take precautions against biased data by performing their own reviews of the sources of data, checking for retractions and corrections, requiring full disclosure of methods, acquiring original data and reanalyzing it, avoiding secondary sources, avoiding unreplicated studies or studies that are not concordant with related studies, and checking for funding or investigator biases. Journals, government agencies, and other institutions can take many more types of actions to reduce bias in scientific data. Some of these are already being implemented but others will require a greater willingness to enforce scientific ethical standards.     

Parents’ Agendas in Paediatric Clinical Trial Recruitment Are Different from Researchers’ and Often Remain Unvoiced: A Qualitative Study

Ensuring parents make an informed decision about their child’s participation in a clinical trial is a challenge for practitioners as a parent’s comprehension of a trial may differ from that intended by the practitioners responsible for recruitment. We explored what issues parents consider important when making a decision about participation in a paediatric clinical trial and their comprehension of these issues to inform future recruitment practice. This qualitative interview and observational study examined recruitment in four placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised clinical trials of medicines for children. Audio-recorded trial recruitment discussions between practitioners and parents (N = 41) were matched with semi-structured interviews with parents (N = 41). When making a decision about trial entry parents considered clinical benefit, child safety, practicalities of participation, research for the common good, access to medication and randomisation. Within these prioritised issues parents had specific misunderstandings, which had the potential to influence their decisions. While parents had many questions and concerns about trial participation which influenced their decision-making, they rarely voiced these during discussions about the trials with practitioners. Those involved in the recruitment of children to clinical trials need to be aware of parents’ priorities and the sorts of misunderstandings that can arise with parents. Providing trial information that is tailored to what parents consider important in making a decision about a clinical trial may improve recruitment practice and ultimately benefit evidence-based paediatric medicine.