Cargando…

When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of biomedical research with human subjects. Research ethics committees may allow for a modification or a waiver of consent when the research has social value, involves minimal risk, and if consent is impractical to obtain. While the conditions...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laurijssen, Sara JM, van der Graaf, Rieke, van Dijk, Wouter B, Schuit, Ewoud, Groenwold, Rolf HH, Grobbee, Diederick E, de Vries, Martine C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9523816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35775421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17407745221103567
_version_ 1784800369969201152
author Laurijssen, Sara JM
van der Graaf, Rieke
van Dijk, Wouter B
Schuit, Ewoud
Groenwold, Rolf HH
Grobbee, Diederick E
de Vries, Martine C
author_facet Laurijssen, Sara JM
van der Graaf, Rieke
van Dijk, Wouter B
Schuit, Ewoud
Groenwold, Rolf HH
Grobbee, Diederick E
de Vries, Martine C
author_sort Laurijssen, Sara JM
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of biomedical research with human subjects. Research ethics committees may allow for a modification or a waiver of consent when the research has social value, involves minimal risk, and if consent is impractical to obtain. While the conditions of social value and minimal risk have received ample attention in research ethics literature, the impractical condition remains unclear. There seem to be different interpretations of the meaning of impractical within academic literature. To address this lack of clarity, we performed a systematic review on the interpretation of impractical. METHODS: First, we examined international research ethics guidelines on their usage and interpretation of impractical. Next, we used international ethical guidelines to identify synonyms of the term “impractical.” Accordingly, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles that included “informed consent” and “impractical” or one of its synonyms. RESULTS: We found that there were only a few international ethics guidelines that described what could be considered impractical. Out of 2329 identified academic articles, 42 were included. Impractical was used to describe four different conditions: (1) obtaining informed consent becomes too demanding for researchers, (2) obtaining informed consent leads to invalid study outcomes, (3) obtaining informed consent harms the participant, and (4) obtaining informed consent is meaningless for the participant. CONCLUSION: There are conditions that render conventional informed consent truly impractical, such as untraceable participants or harm for participants. At the same time, researchers have a moral responsibility to design an infrastructure in which consent can be obtained, even if they face hardship in obtaining consent. In addition, researchers should seek to minimize harm inflicted upon participants when harm may occur as a result of the consent procedure. Invalidity of research due to consent issues should not be regarded as impractical but as a condition that limits the social value of research. Further research is essential for when a waiver of informed consent based on impractical is also reasonable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9523816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95238162022-10-01 When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review Laurijssen, Sara JM van der Graaf, Rieke van Dijk, Wouter B Schuit, Ewoud Groenwold, Rolf HH Grobbee, Diederick E de Vries, Martine C Clin Trials Reviews BACKGROUND: Informed consent is one of the cornerstones of biomedical research with human subjects. Research ethics committees may allow for a modification or a waiver of consent when the research has social value, involves minimal risk, and if consent is impractical to obtain. While the conditions of social value and minimal risk have received ample attention in research ethics literature, the impractical condition remains unclear. There seem to be different interpretations of the meaning of impractical within academic literature. To address this lack of clarity, we performed a systematic review on the interpretation of impractical. METHODS: First, we examined international research ethics guidelines on their usage and interpretation of impractical. Next, we used international ethical guidelines to identify synonyms of the term “impractical.” Accordingly, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for articles that included “informed consent” and “impractical” or one of its synonyms. RESULTS: We found that there were only a few international ethics guidelines that described what could be considered impractical. Out of 2329 identified academic articles, 42 were included. Impractical was used to describe four different conditions: (1) obtaining informed consent becomes too demanding for researchers, (2) obtaining informed consent leads to invalid study outcomes, (3) obtaining informed consent harms the participant, and (4) obtaining informed consent is meaningless for the participant. CONCLUSION: There are conditions that render conventional informed consent truly impractical, such as untraceable participants or harm for participants. At the same time, researchers have a moral responsibility to design an infrastructure in which consent can be obtained, even if they face hardship in obtaining consent. In addition, researchers should seek to minimize harm inflicted upon participants when harm may occur as a result of the consent procedure. Invalidity of research due to consent issues should not be regarded as impractical but as a condition that limits the social value of research. Further research is essential for when a waiver of informed consent based on impractical is also reasonable. SAGE Publications 2022-07-01 2022-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9523816/ /pubmed/35775421 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17407745221103567 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Reviews
Laurijssen, Sara JM
van der Graaf, Rieke
van Dijk, Wouter B
Schuit, Ewoud
Groenwold, Rolf HH
Grobbee, Diederick E
de Vries, Martine C
When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
title When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
title_full When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
title_fullStr When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
title_short When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
title_sort when is it impractical to ask informed consent? a systematic review
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9523816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35775421
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17407745221103567
work_keys_str_mv AT laurijssensarajm whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview
AT vandergraafrieke whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview
AT vandijkwouterb whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview
AT schuitewoud whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview
AT groenwoldrolfhh whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview
AT grobbeediedericke whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview
AT devriesmartinec whenisitimpracticaltoaskinformedconsentasystematicreview