Evidence mapPaperPMID 33023975Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020

Demonstrating 'respect for persons' in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants.

Stephanie A Kraft, Erin Rothwell, Seema K Shah, Devan M Duenas, Hannah Lewis, Kristin Muessig, Douglas J Opel, Katrina A B Goddard, Benjamin S Wilfond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Ethical considerations for respectful research participant payment processes.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stephanie A KraftTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA stephanie.kraft@seattlechildrens.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-7601
Erin RothwellObstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Seema K ShahStanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Ann and Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Devan M DuenasTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Hannah LewisTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kristin MuessigTranslational and Applied Genomics, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Douglas J OpelTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Katrina A B GoddardTranslational and Applied Genomics, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Benjamin S WilfondTreuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Funding

Respect for Persons in the Genomics Research Enrollment Process: Incorporating Diverse Experiences and AttitudesK01HG010361 · NHGRI · SEATTLE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI Stephanie A Kraft · 2022 to 2023
$259k
NHGRI NIH HHS K01 HG010361NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG007292NHGRI NIH HHS U24 HG007307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethical principle of 'respect for persons' in clinical research has traditionally focused on protecting individuals' autonomy rights, but respect for participants also includes broader, although less well understood, ethical obligations to regard individuals' rights, needs, interests and feelings. However, there is little empirical evidence about how to effectively convey respect to potential and current participants. To fill this gap, we conducted exploratory, qualitative interviews with participants in a clinical genomics implementation study. We interviewed 40 participants in English (n=30) or Spanish (n=10) about their experiences with respect in the study and perceptions of how researchers in a hypothetical observational study could convey respect or a lack thereof. Most interviewees were female (93%), identified as Hispanic/Latino(a) (43%) or non-Hispanic white (38%), reported annual household income under US$60 000 (70%) and did not have a Bachelor's degree (65%); 30% had limited health literacy. We identified four key domains for demonstrating respect: (1) personal study team interactions, with an emphasis on empathy, appreciation and non-judgment; (2) study communication processes, including following up and sharing results with participants; (3) inclusion, particularly ensuring materials are understandable and procedures are accessible; and (4) consent and authorisation, including providing a neutral informed consent and keeping promises regarding privacy protections. While the experience of respect is inherently subjective, these findings highlight four key domains that may meaningfully demonstrate respect to potential and current research participants. Further empirical and normative work is needed to substantiate these domains and evaluate how best to incorporate them into the practice of research.

Indexed as

clinical trialsinformed consentresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID33023975
PMCPMC8021602

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.