medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán

2019, Number 4

Next >>

Rev Invest Clin 2019; 71 (4)

II. The Research Ethics Involving Vulnerable Groups

González-Duarte A, Zambrano-González E, Medina-Franco H, Alberú-Gómez J, Durand-Carbajal M, Hinojosa CA, Aguilar-Salinas CA, Kaufer-Horwitz M

Language: English
References: 36
Page: 217-225
PDF size: 214.41 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Vulnerability in research occurs when the participant is incapable of protecting his or her interests and therefore, has an increased probability of being intentionally or unintentionally harmed. This manuscript aims to discuss the conditions that make a group vulnerable and the tools and requirements that can be used to reduce the ethical breaches when including them in research protocols. The vulnerability can be due either to an inability to understand and give informed consent or to unequal power relationships that hinder basic rights. Excluding subjects from research for the only reason of belonging to a vulnerable group is unethical and will bias the results of the investigation. To consider a subject or group as vulnerable depends on the context, and the investigator should evaluate each case individually.


REFERENCES

  1. Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, et al. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2004;4:44-9.

  2. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans. 4th ed. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS); 2016.

  3. Biros M. Capacity, vulnerability, and informed consent for research. J Law Med Ethics. 2018;46:72-8.

  4. Blustein J. The history and moral foundations of human-subject research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;86:82-5.

  5. Tamariz L, Palacio A, Robert M, Marcus EN. Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:121-6.

  6. Vágvölgyi R, Coldea A, Dresler T, Schrader J, Nuerk HC. A review about functional illiteracy: definition, cognitive, linguistic, and numerical aspects. Front Psychol. 2016;7:1617.

  7. Wendler D. Can we ensure that all research subjects give valid consent? Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2201-4.

  8. Roter DL, Rudd RE, Comings J. Patient literacy. A barrier to quality of care. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:850-1.

  9. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593-601.

  10. Kripalani S, Bengtzen R, Henderson LE, Jacobson TA. Clinical research in low-literacy populations: using teach-back to assess comprehension of informed consent and privacy information. IRB. 2008;30:13-9.

  11. Schwenzer KJ. Protecting vulnerable subjects in clinical research: children, pregnant women, prisoners, and employees. Respir Care. 2008;53:1342-9.

  12. Leentjens AF, Levenson JL. Ethical issues concerning the recruitment of university students as research subjects. J Psychosom Res. 2013;75:394-8.

  13. Spence DL. Ensuring respect for persons when recruiting junior enlisted personnel for research. Mil Med. 2007;172:250-3.

  14. Wizemann TM, Pardue ML. Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health Does Sex Matter? Institute of Medicen (US) Committee on Understanding the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences. Wasington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.

  15. Liu KA, Mager NA. Women’s involvement in clinical trials: historical perspective and future implications. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14:708.

  16. McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA. Preventive ethics for including women of childbearing potential in clinical trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1221-7.

  17. Mastroianni AC, Faden R, Federman D. Women and Health Research: ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Ethical and Legal Issues Relating to the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Studies. Washington DC: National Academies Press (US); 1999.

  18. Frew PM, Saint-Victor DS, Isaacs MB, et al. Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59 Suppl 7:S400-7.

  19. Mastroianni AC, Faden R, Federman D. Workshop and commissioned papers. Institute of medicine (US) committee on the ethical and legal issues relating to the inclusion of women in clinical studies. In: women and Health Research: ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 1999.

  20. Rachin JD. A Report of Task Force Sponsored by the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health. Science Meets Reality: recruitment and Retentions of Women in Clinical Studies, and the Critical Role of Relevance. Ch. 4. Informed Consent; 2003.

  21. Sengupta S, Lo B, Strauss RP, Eron J, Gifford AL. How researchers define vulnerable populations in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:1313-9.

  22. Marlboro College. Vulnerable Populations and Other Ethical Considerations. Available from: https://www.nook.marlboro.edu/ public/academics/irb/vulnerable_populations#hiv.

  23. Marshall Z, Welch V, Thomas J, et al. Documenting research with transgender and gender diverse people: protocol for an evidence map and thematic analysis. Syst Rev. 2017;6:35.

  24. Bowman SM. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Populations: challenges in Recruitment, Retention, and Relevance. Science meets reality: recruitment and Retention of Women in Clinical Studies, and the Critical Role of Relevance. Vol. 8. A Report of the Task Force Sponsored by the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health NIH Publication No. 03-5403; 2003. p. 115-7.

  25. Cochrane Library. Prevention of Obesity. Special Collection. Available from: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/details/collection/ 1417657/Prevention-of-obesity.html. [Last accessed on 2011 Dec 07].

  26. Fry CL. Competing interests, intervention limits, and permissible health identities. Health Promot J Aust. 2010;21:170-5.

  27. Hurlimann T, Peña-Rosas JP, Saxena A, Zamora G, Godard B. Ethical issues in the development and implementation of nutrition- related public health policies and interventions: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0186897.

  28. Klingler C, Odukoya D, Kuehlmeyer K. Migration, health, and ethics. Bioethics. 2018;32:330-3.

  29. Eckenwiler L, Straehle C, Chung R. Global solidarity, migration and global health inequity. Bioethics. 2012;26:382-90.

  30. World Health Organization. Health of Refugees and Migrants. Available from: http://www.who.int/migrants/publications/ EMRO-Practices.pdf. [Last accessed on 2019 Feb 06].

  31. Arenas Massa A, Slachevsky Chonchol A. Decision making and consents given by demented patients. Are they valid? Rev Med Chil. 2017;145:1312-8.

  32. Radoilska L. Introduction: personal autonomy, decisional capacity, and mental disorder. In: autonomy and Mental Disorder. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 9-41.

  33. Warner J, McCarney R, Griffin M, Hill K, Fisher P. Participation in dementia research: rates and correlates of capacity to give informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2008;34:167-70.

  34. Trachsel M, Hermann H, Biller-Andorno N. Cognitive fluctuations as a challenge for the assessment of decision-making capacity in patients with dementia. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2015;30:360-3.

  35. Alvaro LC. Competency: general principles and applicability in dementia. Neurologia. 2012;27:290-300.

  36. The Belmont Report: three Principles for Ethical Research. Available from: https://www.msalganik.wordpress.com/2014/07/ 29/the-belmont-report-three-principles-for-ethical-research. [Last accessed on 2019 Feb 06].




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com