Cargando…

Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis

While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitmen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Al, Pepijn, Hey, Spencer, Weijer, Charles, Gillies, Katie, McCleary, Nicola, Yee, Mei-Lin, Inglis, Juliette, Presseau, Justin, Brehaut, Jamie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10044713/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36973759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07258-4
_version_ 1784913414567493632
author Al, Pepijn
Hey, Spencer
Weijer, Charles
Gillies, Katie
McCleary, Nicola
Yee, Mei-Lin
Inglis, Juliette
Presseau, Justin
Brehaut, Jamie
author_facet Al, Pepijn
Hey, Spencer
Weijer, Charles
Gillies, Katie
McCleary, Nicola
Yee, Mei-Lin
Inglis, Juliette
Presseau, Justin
Brehaut, Jamie
author_sort Al, Pepijn
collection PubMed
description While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitment. Although this approach is promising, the use of behavioral influences during recruitment is in tension with the ethical principle of respect for persons, as at least some of these influences could be used to manipulate potential participants. In this paper, we examine this tension by discussing two types of behavioral influences: one example involves physician recommendations, and the other involves framing of information to exploit cognitive biases. We argue that despite the apparent tension with ethical principles, influencing trial participants through behavior change strategies can be ethically acceptable. However, we argue that trialists have a positive obligation to analyze their recruitment strategies for behavioral influences and disclose these upfront to the research ethics committee. But we also acknowledge that since neither trialists nor ethics committees are presently well equipped to perform these analyses, additional resources and guidance are needed. We close by outlining a path toward the development of such guidance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07258-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10044713
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100447132023-03-29 Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis Al, Pepijn Hey, Spencer Weijer, Charles Gillies, Katie McCleary, Nicola Yee, Mei-Lin Inglis, Juliette Presseau, Justin Brehaut, Jamie Trials Commentary While randomized controlled trials are essential to health research, many of these trials fail to recruit enough participants. Approaching recruitment through the lens of behavioral science can help trialists to understand influences on the decision to participate and use them to increase recruitment. Although this approach is promising, the use of behavioral influences during recruitment is in tension with the ethical principle of respect for persons, as at least some of these influences could be used to manipulate potential participants. In this paper, we examine this tension by discussing two types of behavioral influences: one example involves physician recommendations, and the other involves framing of information to exploit cognitive biases. We argue that despite the apparent tension with ethical principles, influencing trial participants through behavior change strategies can be ethically acceptable. However, we argue that trialists have a positive obligation to analyze their recruitment strategies for behavioral influences and disclose these upfront to the research ethics committee. But we also acknowledge that since neither trialists nor ethics committees are presently well equipped to perform these analyses, additional resources and guidance are needed. We close by outlining a path toward the development of such guidance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-023-07258-4. BioMed Central 2023-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC10044713/ /pubmed/36973759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07258-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Commentary
Al, Pepijn
Hey, Spencer
Weijer, Charles
Gillies, Katie
McCleary, Nicola
Yee, Mei-Lin
Inglis, Juliette
Presseau, Justin
Brehaut, Jamie
Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
title Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
title_full Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
title_fullStr Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
title_full_unstemmed Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
title_short Changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
title_sort changing patient preferences toward better trial recruitment: an ethical analysis
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10044713/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36973759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07258-4
work_keys_str_mv AT alpepijn changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT heyspencer changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT weijercharles changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT gillieskatie changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT mcclearynicola changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT yeemeilin changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT inglisjuliette changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT presseaujustin changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis
AT brehautjamie changingpatientpreferencestowardbettertrialrecruitmentanethicalanalysis