Public Health Ethics 4 (2):160-184 (2011)

Abstract
Background : researchers and sponsors increasingly confront the issue of whether participants in a clinical trial should have post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug. Legislation and guidelines are inconsistent, ambiguous or silent about many aspects of PTA. Recent research highlights the potential importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of reason-based literatures in informing decision-making in medicine, medical research and health policy. Purpose: to systematically review reasons why drug trial participants should, or need not be ensured PTA to the trial drug and the uses of such reasons. Data sources: databases in science/medicine, law and ethics, thesis databases, bibliographies, research ethics books and included publications’ notes/bibliographies. Publication selection: a publication was included if it included a reason as above. See article for detailed inclusion conditions. Data extraction and analysis: two reviewers extracted and analyzed data on publications and reasons. Results: of 2060 publications identified, 75 were included. These mentioned reasons based on morality, legality, interests/incentives, or practicality, comprising 36 broad (235 narrow) types of reason. None of the included publications, which included informal reviews and reports by official bodies, mentioned more than 22 broad (59 narrow) types. For many reasons, publications differed about the reason’s interpretation, implications and/or persuasiveness. Publications differed also regarding costs, feasibility and legality of PTA. Limitations: reason types could be applied differently. The quality of reasons was not measured. Conclusion: this review captured a greater variety of reasons and of their uses than any included publication. Decisions based on informal reviews or sub-sets of literature are likely to be biased. Research is needed on PTA ethics, costs, feasibility and legality and on assessing the quality of reason-based literature
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/phe/phr013
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,593
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How to Write a Systematic Review of Reasons.Daniel Strech & Neema Sofaer - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2):121-126.
Systematic Reviews in Bioethics: Types, Challenges, and Value.R. Mcdougall - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (1):89-97.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-07-13

Total views
49 ( #199,163 of 2,385,745 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #130,583 of 2,385,745 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes