Gerardo González-Saldivar, René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, Jose Luis Viramontes-Madrid, Alejandro Salcido-Montenegro, Neri Alejandro Álvarez-Villalobos, Victoria González-Nava & José Gerardo González-González
BMC Medical Ethics 20 (1):2 (2019)
Authors | |
Abstract |
The rapid increase of industry-sponsored clinical research towards developing countries has led to potentially complex ethical issues to assess. There is scarce evidence about the perception of these participants about the ethical compliance, security, and protection. We sought to evaluate and contrast the awareness and perception of participants and non-participants of industry-sponsored research trials on ethical, safety, and protection topics. A Cases-control survey conducted at twelve research sites in México. Previous and current participants of ISRT as well as non-participants with one of four chronic diseases, were asked to complete the survey which focused on ethical compliance and protection issues of ISRT, and the perception of participating in a trial. A total of 604 cases and 604 controls were surveyed. Cases significantly answered that ethics committees are aware of what is happening in studies, and that medical care of industry-sponsored research trials is better than their usual medical care. The same proportion of cases and controls thought patients must receive economical reimbursement for participating in a research study. The informed consent of the pharmaceutical clinical trial was fully read by 90.4% of the cases. Most cases were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall study participation. Previous and current participants of industry-sponsored research trials have a more positive attitude towards ethics committees, the quality of medical care of the research trials, and the main purpose of economical reimbursements, when compared to non-participants.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1186/s12910-018-0344-8 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Improving Understanding in the Research Informed Consent Process: A Systematic Review of 54 Interventions Tested in Randomized Control Trials. [REVIEW]Adam Nishimura, Jantey Carey, Patricia J. Erwin, Jon C. Tilburt, M. Hassan Murad & Jennifer B. McCormick - 2013 - BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):28.
The Quality of Informed Consent: Mapping the Landscape. A Review of Empirical Data From Developing and Developed Countries.Amulya Mandava, Christine Pace, Benjamin Campbell, Ezekiel Emanuel & Christine Grady - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (6):356-365.
How Do We Know That Research Ethics Committees Are Really Working? The Neglected Role of Outcomes Assessment in Research Ethics Review.Carl H. Coleman & Marie-Charlotte Bouësseau - 2008 - BMC Medical Ethics 9 (1):6-.
The Influence of Risk and Monetary Payment on the Research Participation Decision Making Process.J. P. Bentley - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (3):293-298.
Measuring inconsistency in research ethics committee review.Samantha Trace & Simon Erik Kolstoe - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):65.
View all 7 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
‘Risky’ Research and Participants' Interests: The Ethics of Phase 2C Clinical Trials.Sarah Chan, Ying-Kiat Zee, Gordon Jayson & John Harris - 2011 - Clinical Ethics 6 (2):91-96.
The Ethics of Placebo-Controlled Trials: Methodological Justifications.Joseph Millum & Christine Grady - 2013 - Contemporary Clinical Trials 36 (2):510-14.
Industry-Corrupted Psychiatric Trials.Leemon McHenry, Jon Jureidini & Jay Amsterdam - 2017 - Psychiatria Polska 51 (6):993-1008.
Shortcomings of Protocols of Drug Trials in Relation to Sponsorship as Identified by Research Ethics Committees: Analysis of Comments Raised During Ethical Review.Marlies van Lent, Gerard A. Rongen & Henk J. Out - 2014 - BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):83.
Attitudes Towards Clinical Research Among Cancer Trial Participants and Non-Participants: An Interview Study Using a Grounded Theory Approach.S. M. Madsen, S. Holm & P. Riis - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (4):234-240.
Evaluating the Therapeutic Misconception.Franklin G. Miller & Steven Joffe - 2006 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (4):353-366.
Statistical Power, the Belmont Report, and the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Sara H. Vollmer & George Howard - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (4):675-691.
The Protection of Patients' Rights in Clinical Trials.Marek Czarkowski - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):131-138.
Characterizing the Population in Clinical Trials: Barriers, Comparability, and Implications for Review.Charles Weijer - unknown
Supporting Positive Experiences and Sustained Participation in Clinical Trials: Looking Beyond Information Provision.Kate Gillies & Vikki A. Entwistle - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (12):751-756.
Reporting of Informed Consent, Standard of Care and Post‐Trial Obligations in Global Randomized Intervention Trials: A Systematic Survey of Registered Trials.Jennifer M. O'neill Emma R. Cohen - 2009 - Developing World Bioethics 9 (2):74-80.
The Vulnerability of Study Participants in the Context of Transnational Biomedical Research: From Conceptual Considerations to Practical Implications.Orth Helen Grete & Schicktanz Silke - 2017 - Developing World Bioethics 17 (2):121-133.
Deception in the Single-Blind Run-In Phase of Clinical Trials.Howard Mann - 2007 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 29 (2).
Analytics
Added to PP index
2019-01-09
Total views
5 ( #1,130,248 of 2,402,078 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #552,323 of 2,402,078 )
2019-01-09
Total views
5 ( #1,130,248 of 2,402,078 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #552,323 of 2,402,078 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads