ArticleJournal of medical ethics2020
Demonstrating 'respect for persons' in clinical research: findings from qualitative interviews with diverse genomics research participants.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current global practice and implications for future research on disseminating health research results to study participants: A systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Acceptability and Feasibility of an Educational Intervention to Improve Researcher-Participant Interactions in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Clinical Trial: Research Team Feedback on the BRIEF Intervention.American journal of perinatology · 2026Trial
- Article
- Piloting the better research interactions for every family (BRIEF) researcher intervention to support recruitment for a neonatal clinical trial: parent experience and infant enrollment.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Towards better enrollment decision-making for perinatal clinical research: Reconsidering recruitment and consent processes to support family values and preferences.Seminars in perinatology · 2025Review
- Article
- Ethical considerations for respectful research participant payment processes.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Overcoming the exclusion of marginalized caregiver and patient groups in pediatric brain tumor research.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
- Patient priorities for fulfilling the principle of respect in research: findings from a modified Delphi study.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Better recognition for research participants: what society should learn from covid-19.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Toward Meeting the Obligation of Respect for Persons in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The Hastings Center report · 2022Article
- Identification and management of pragmatic clinical trial collateral findings: A current understanding and directions for future research.Healthcare (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Parental Enrollment Decision-Making for a Neonatal Clinical Trial.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Article
- Promoting Disclosure and Understanding in Informed Consent: Optimizing the Impact of the Common Rule "Key Information" Requirement.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2021Article
- Patient perspectives on how to demonstrate respect: Implications for clinicians and healthcare organizations.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.