Recall of participation in research projects in cancer genetics: some implications for research ethics
Graduate studies at Western
Clinical Ethics 3 (4):180-184 (2008)
|Abstract||The aim of this study is to assess patients' recall of their previous research participation. Recall was established during interviews and compared with entries from clinical notes. Participants were 49 patients who had previously participated in different types of research. Of the 49 patients, 45 (92%) interviewees recalled 69 of 109 (63%) study participations. Level of recall varied according to the type of research, some participants clearly recalled the details of research aims, giving consent and research procedures. Others recalled procedures (e.g. DNA testing) but were unclear about their purpose. There was no significant effect of time on recall. Some types of research participation (e.g. DNA testing) may be recalled as clinical care. We argue that such misunderstandings may have the potential to undermine participants' ongoing consent, particularly in ongoing/longitudinal studies. Valid consent may be best achieved by re-assessing the scope of consent and relating it to the nature of the interventions themselves rather than the reasons for undertaking them|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, A. Lucassen, M. Parker & C. Snowdon (2009). An Investigation of Patients' Motivations for Their Participation in Genetics-Related Research. Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (1):37-45.
N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, M. Parker & A. Lucassen (2009). Healthcare Professionals' and Researchers' Understanding of Cancer Genetics Activities: A Qualitative Interview Study. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):113-119.
Michael Jay Polonsky (1998). Incorporating Ethics Into Business Students' Research Projects: A Process Approach. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1227-1241.
Colleen Reid & Elana Brief (2009). Confronting Condescending Ethics: How Community-Based Research Challenges Traditional Approaches to Consent, Confidentiality, and Capacity. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 7 (1-2):75-85.
N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, M. Parker & A. Lucassen (2008). Ethics and Research Governance: The Views of Researchers, Health-Care Professionals and Other Stakeholders. Clinical Ethics 3 (2):85-90.
Jennifer Marshall, The Development of Contemporary Medical Genetics Research Models and the Need for Scientific Responsibility.
Robert H. McLaughlin (2008). Participation in Research and Social Context: The Case of Population-Based Cancer Registration, Surveillance, and Research. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):41 – 42.
Don Marquis (1989). An Ethical Problem Concerning Recent Therapeutic Research on Breast Cancer. Hypatia 4 (2):140 - 155.
Kate Read, Conrad Vincent Fernandez, Jun Gao, Caron Strahlendorf, Albert Moghrabi, Rebecca Davis Pentz, Raymond Carlton Barfield, Justin Nathaniel Baker, Darcy Santor, Charles Weijer & Eric Kodish, Decision-Making by Adolescents and Parents of Children with Cancer Regarding Health Research Participation.
R. J. Burke & D. Mikalachki (1990). The Women in Management Research Program at the National Centre for Management Research and Development. Journal of Business Ethics 9 (4-5):447 - 453.
Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen (2004). Action Research?Scandinavian Experiences. AI and Society 18 (1):21-43.
Adil E. Shamoo (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research. Oxford University Press.
Harold Hillman (1995). Honest Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (1).
Joseph Agassi (1977). The Methodology of Research Projects: A Sketch. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 8 (1):30-38.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-14
Total downloads1 ( #294,406 of 757,557 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,557 )
How can I increase my downloads?