Physicians' Understanding of Consent Requirements for Phase I Clinical Trials in Cognitively Impaired or Highly Vulnerable Patients

We investigated physicians' attitudes about entering patients who cannot give informed consent or who are of a vulnerable population into clinical trials. A survey instrument asked a nationwide sample of practicing physicians about whether ten hypothetical patients could be enrolled in a phase I clinical trials. The impact of demographic variables on the number of scenarios viewed as completely or somewhat acceptable was analyzed via student's T tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) as applicable. All significant (p < 0.01) variables were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that at least one case scenario was acceptable. A majority of those who conduct clinical trials (62%), who had training in the ethics of clinical research (78%), and who sit on institutional review boards (IRBs) (83%) approved of at least one case scenario. Physicians approved of the entry of some patients who cannot give informed consent or who are of a vulnerable population into clinical trials. More effective education on the guidelines involving clinical research should be available to practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. There should also be assurance that physicians who conduct clinical trials or who sit on IRBs have the requisite knowledge about the ethics of clinical research.

[1]  G. Annas Questing for grails: duplicity, betrayal and self-deception in postmodern medical research. , 2017, The Journal of contemporary health law and policy.

[2]  Steven Joffe,et al.  Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey , 2001, The Lancet.

[3]  P. Ubel,et al.  Physicians' Willingness To Participate in the Process of Lethal Injection for Capital Punishment , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  J. Horner,et al.  Retreat from Nuremberg: can we prevent unethical medical research? , 1999, Public health.

[5]  M. Furmanski Unlicensed vaccines and bioweapon defense in World War II. , 1999, JAMA.

[6]  J. Schofer Violations of informed consent during war. , 1999, JAMA.

[7]  B. Rich,et al.  A historical perspective of informed consent in clinical practice and research. , 1999, Seminars in oncology nursing.

[8]  M. McCabe The ethical foundation of informed consent in clinical research. , 1999, Seminars in oncology nursing.

[9]  M. G. Bloche Clinical loyalties and the social purposes of medicine. , 1999, JAMA.

[10]  E. Rich Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the U.S. 1997/98 , 1998, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  J. Moskop A moral analysis of military medicine. , 1998, Military medicine.

[12]  E. Shuster Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  H. Bastian,et al.  Competing or Complementary?: Ethical Considerations and the Quality of Randomized Trials , 1996, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[14]  M. Wilks,et al.  Human Volunteer Studies with Non-Pharmaceutical Chemicals: Metabolism and Pharmacokinetic Studies , 1994, Human & experimental toxicology.

[15]  G. J. Annas Changing the consent rules for Desert Storm. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  D. C. Addicott Regulating research on the terminally ill: a proposal for heightened safeguards. , 1999, The Journal of contemporary health law and policy.

[17]  Eileen Welsome The Plutonium Files , 1999 .

[18]  Addicott Dc Regulating research on the terminally ill: a proposal for heightened safeguards. , 1999 .

[19]  N. Fost Waived Consent for Emergency Research , 1998, American Journal of Law & Medicine.