IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v28y2008i4p575-581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expectations of Benefit in Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Implications for Assessing the Adequacy of Informed Consent

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin P. Weinfurt

    (Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu, Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina)

  • Damon M. Seils

    (Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute)

  • Janice P. Tzeng

    (Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute)

  • Kate L. Compton

    (Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute)

  • Daniel P. Sulmasy

    (The John J. Conley Department of Ethics, St. Vincents Manhattan, New York, New York, Bioethics Institute of New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York)

  • Alan B. Astrow

    (Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York)

  • Nicholas A. Solarino

    (Divisions of Medical Science and Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

  • Kevin A. Schulman

    (Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina)

  • Neal J. Meropol

    (Divisions of Medical Science and Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Background. Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented, which is based on assumptions about what patients mean when responding to questions about likelihood of benefit. Methods. Participants were 27 women and 18 men in early-phase oncology trials at 2 academic medical centers in the United States. To determine whether expectations of benefit differ depending on how patients are queried, the authors randomly assigned participants to 1 of 3 interviews corresponding to 3 questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency type, belief type, and vague. In semistructured interviews, participants were queried about how they understood and answered the question. Participants then answered and discussed 1 of the other questions. Results. Expectations of benefit in response to the belief-type question were significantly greater than expectations in response to the frequency-type and vague questions ( P=0:02 ). The most common justifications involved positive attitude ( n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health ( n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with higher ( > 70%) expectations ( n = 11 [85%]) and least common among those with lower (

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin P. Weinfurt & Damon M. Seils & Janice P. Tzeng & Kate L. Compton & Daniel P. Sulmasy & Alan B. Astrow & Nicholas A. Solarino & Kevin A. Schulman & Neal J. Meropol, 2008. "Expectations of Benefit in Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Implications for Assessing the Adequacy of Informed Consent," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(4), pages 575-581, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:575-581
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08315242
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X08315242?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Gail E. Henderson, 2008. "Introducing Social and Ethical Perspectives on Gene—Environment Research," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(2), pages 251-276, November.
    3. 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.

    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:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:575-581. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.