Article Text
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.
- research ethics
- informed consent
- clinical trials
Data availability statement
Data are available upon request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon request.
Footnotes
Twitter @SeemaKShah
Contributors SAK obtained funding, designed the study, developed data collection tools, oversaw data collection and analysis, collected data, analysed data, and drafted and revised the manuscript. She is guarantor. ER and SS advised on study design, developed data collection tools, analysed data and revised the manuscript. DMD developed data collection tools, coordinated data collection, collected data, analysed data and revised the manuscript. HL developed data collection tools, collected data, analysed data and revised the manuscript. KM coordinated data collection and revised the manuscript. DO advised on study design, analysed data and revised the manuscript. KABG obtained funding, advised on study design, analysed data and revised the manuscript. BSW obtained funding, advised on study design, oversaw analysis, analysed data and revised the manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by NHGRI grant K01HG010361 (PI: SAK) and the Clinical Research Scholars Program at the Seattle Children’s Research Institute Center for Clinical and Translational Research (no award number, PI: SAK). Additional support was provided by the CHARM study (U01HG007292, MPIs: BSW, KABG) and the CSER Coordinating Center (U24HG007307) as part of the CSER consortium funded by NHGRI with cofunding from NIMHD and NCI. The contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The CSER consortium thanks the staff and participants of all CSER studies for their important contributions. More information about CSER can be found at https://cser-consortium.org.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- What does ‘respect for persons’ require? Attitudes and reported practices of genetics researchers in informing research participants about research
- Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity
- Education versus screening: the use of capacity to consent tools in psychiatric genomics
- Healthcare professionals’ and researchers’ understanding of cancer genetics activities: a qualitative interview study
- An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research
- Impacts of clinical academic activity: qualitative interviews with healthcare managers and research-active nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and pharmacists
- Exploring the experiences of substitute decision-makers with an exception to consent in a paediatric resuscitation randomised controlled trial: study protocol for a qualitative research study
- ‘Who is going to put their life on the line for a dollar? That’s crazy’: community perspectives of financial compensation in clinical research
- Recruiting ethnic minority participants to a clinical trial: a qualitative study
- The search for clarity in communicating research results to study participants