IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i5p873-882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"They should take time": Disclosure of clinical trial results as part of a social relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Sarradon-Eck, Aline
  • Sakoyan, Juliette
  • Desclaux, Alice
  • Mancini, Julien
  • Genre, Dominique
  • Julian-Reynier, Claire

Abstract

Disclosing overall scientific results to clinical trial participants has become an ethical obligation. Here we studied how participants understand these results in view of their experience of clinical trials and illness in general and what modes of disclosure they preferred. Interviews were conducted with 29 breast cancer patients in France during 2009, using an in-depth qualitative approach. The findings obtained show that the “results” of research are understood quite differently by various patients depending on their expectations about clinical trials. Most of the women interviewed expected to receive personally tailored results at an individual encounter with their own clinical oncologist. Their preferred mode of disclosure was a consultation with their doctors because personal encounters promote mutual recognition and set up a symbolic process of exchange. The results of this study show that medical interventions should not be regarded solely from the technical point of view, but also in terms of the social relationships involved.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarradon-Eck, Aline & Sakoyan, Juliette & Desclaux, Alice & Mancini, Julien & Genre, Dominique & Julian-Reynier, Claire, 2012. ""They should take time": Disclosure of clinical trial results as part of a social relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 873-882.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:5:p:873-882
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612003784
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Del Vecchio Good, Mary-Jo & Munakata, Tseunetsugu & Kobayashi, Yasuki & Mattingly, Cheryl & Good, Byron J., 1994. "Oncology and narrative time," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 855-862, March.
    2. Dixon-Woods, Mary & Ashcroft, Richard E. & Jackson, Clare J. & Tobin, Martin D. & Kivits, Joelle & Burton, Paul R. & Samani, Nilesh J., 2007. "Beyond "misunderstanding": Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2212-2222, December.
    3. Catherine M. Will, 2011. "Mutual Benefit, Added Value?," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 11-26, February.
    4. Timmermans, Stefan & McKay, Tara, 2009. "Clinical trials as treatment option: Bioethics and health care disparities in substance dependency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1784-1790, December.
    5. Lidz, Charles W. & Appelbaum, Paul S. & Grisso, Thomas & Renaud, Michelle, 2004. "Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(9), pages 1689-1697, May.
    6. Potter, Sharyn J. & McKinlay, John B., 2005. "From a relationship to encounter: an examination of longitudinal and lateral dimensions in the doctor-patient relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 465-479, July.
    7. Drew, Jennifer & Stoeckle, John D. & Billings, J. Andrew, 1983. "Tips, status and sacrifice: Gift giving in the doctor-patient relationship," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(7), pages 399-404, January.
    8. Henderson, Gail E. & Easter, Michele M. & Zimmer, Catherine & King, Nancy M.P. & Davis, Arlene M. & Rothschild, Barbra Bluestone & Churchill, Larry R. & Wilfond, Benjamin S. & Nelson, Daniel K., 2006. "Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 239-253, January.
    9. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    10. Hallowell, Nina & Cooke, Sarah & Crawford, Gill & Lucassen, Anneke & Parker, Michael, 2009. "Distinguishing research from clinical care in cancer genetics: Theoretical justifications and practical strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2010-2017, June.
    11. Lupton, Deborah, 1997. "Consumerism, reflexivity and the medical encounter," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 373-381, August.
    12. Dixon-Woods, Mary & Tarrant, Carolyn, 2009. "Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2215-2222, June.
    13. Featherstone, Katie & Donovan, Jenny L., 2002. ""Why don't they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 709-719, September.
    14. McKay, Tara & Timmermans, Stefan, 2009. "The bioethical misconception: A response to Lidz," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1793-1796, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawton, Julia & Jenkins, Nicholas & Darbyshire, Julie & Farmer, Andrew & Holman, Rury & Hallowell, Nina, 2012. "Understanding the outcomes of multi-centre clinical trials: A qualitative study of health professional experiences and views," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 574-581.
    2. Wolters, Anna & de Wert, Guido & van Schayck, Onno & Horstman, Klasien, 2014. "Constructing a trial as a personal lifestyle change project: Participants' experiences in a clinical study for nicotine vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 116-123.
    3. Zvonareva, Olga & Engel, Nora & Martsevich, Sergey & de Wert, Guido & Horstman, Klasien, 2015. "International clinical trials, cardiovascular disease and treatment options in the Russian Federation: Research and treatment in practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 255-262.
    4. Hallowell, Nina & Cooke, Sarah & Crawford, Gill & Lucassen, Anneke & Parker, Michael, 2009. "Distinguishing research from clinical care in cancer genetics: Theoretical justifications and practical strategies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2010-2017, June.
    5. Morris, Norma & Bàlmer, Brian, 2006. "Volunteer human subjects' understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 998-1008, February.
    6. Dixon-Woods, Mary & Ashcroft, Richard E. & Jackson, Clare J. & Tobin, Martin D. & Kivits, Joelle & Burton, Paul R. & Samani, Nilesh J., 2007. "Beyond "misunderstanding": Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 2212-2222, December.
    7. Stacey, Clare Louise & Henderson, Stuart & MacArthur, Kelly R. & Dohan, Daniel, 2009. "Demanding patient or demanding encounter?: A case study of a cancer clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 729-737, September.
    8. Gage, Elizabeth A., 2013. "Social networks of experientially similar others: Formation, activation, and consequences of network ties on the health care experience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 43-51.
    9. Wade, Julia & Donovan, Jenny L. & Athene Lane, J. & Neal, David E. & Hamdy, Freddie C., 2009. "It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2018-2028, June.
    10. Abhyankar, Purva & Velikova, Galina & Summers, Barbara & Bekker, Hilary L., 2016. "Identifying components in consent information needed to support informed decision making about trial participation: An interview study with women managing cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 83-91.
    11. Greenfield, Geva & Pliskin, Joseph S. & Feder-Bubis, Paula & Wientroub, Shlomo & Davidovitch, Nadav, 2012. "Patient–physician relationships in second opinion encounters – The physicians’ perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(7), pages 1202-1212.
    12. Malambo, Nomthandazo, 2021. "“Not from home”: Cancer screening avoidance and the safety of distance in Eswatini," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    13. Fisher, Jill A. & Cottingham, Marci D. & Kalbaugh, Corey A., 2015. "Peering into the pharmaceutical “pipeline”: Investigational drugs, clinical trials, and industry priorities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 322-330.
    14. Attanasio, Laura B. & Hardeman, Rachel R., 2019. "Declined care and discrimination during the childbirth hospitalization," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 232(C), pages 270-277.
    15. Bromley, Elizabeth, 2012. "Building patient-centeredness: Hospital design as an interpretive act," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(6), pages 1057-1066.
    16. Setti Rais Ali & Paul Dourgnon & Lise Rochaix, 2018. "Social Capital or Education: What Matters Most to Cut Time to Diagnosis?," Working Papers halshs-01703170, HAL.
    17. Scott, Clare & Walker, Jan & White, Peter & Lewith, George, 2011. "Forging convictions: The effects of active participation in a clinical trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(12), pages 2041-2048, June.
    18. Lefkowitz, Deborah, 2022. "Black boxes and information pathways: An actor-network theory approach to breast cancer survivorship care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    19. Dyer, Thomas Anthony & Owens, Janine & Robinson, Peter Glenn, 2014. "The acceptability of care delegation in skill-mix: The salience of trust," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 170-178.
    20. Ewa Malchrowicz-Mośko & Joanna Poczta, 2018. "Running as a Form of Therapy Socio-Psychological Functions of Mass Running Events for Men and Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:5:p:873-882. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.