Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T22:04:37.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking vulnerable groups in clinical research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2017

M. Finnegan  and
B. O’Donoghue
M. Finnegan*
Affiliation:
Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, St Patrick’s University Hospital, Dublin 8, Dublin, Ireland
B. O’Donoghue
Affiliation:
Orygen: The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
*
*Address for correspondence: M. Finnegan, Research Department, St Patrick‘s University Hospital, James St Dublin 8, Ireland. (Email: finnegma@tcd.ie)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vulnerable groups are often excluded from clinical research on the basis of scientific, ethical and practical reasons. Although intended to protect vulnerable people and maintain study integrity, exclusion of vulnerable groups from research through use of standard exclusion criteria may not always be necessary and may result in findings that are not generalisable. Achieving a balance between the competing needs to protect vulnerable people and to make progress in our understanding of disorders and their management through research requires a reconsideration of exclusion criteria and consent processes to ensure vulnerable people are appropriately represented in clinical research. Reasons for development of broad exclusion criteria include both concrete barriers and intangible discouraging factors. This paper examines this situation and its consequences, perceived and real barriers to inclusion of vulnerable people in research, and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers and applying thoughtful exclusion criteria.

Keywords

Coercionconsentexclusionresearchvulnerable
Type
Perspective Piece
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 63 - 71
Copyright
© College of Psychiatrists of Ireland 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, P, Wongwit, W, Pengsaa, K, Khusmith, S, Fungladda, W, Chaiyaphan, W, Limphattharacharoen, C, Prakobtham, S, Kaewkungwal, J (2013). Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand. BMC Medical Ethics 14, 33.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, PS (2006). Decisional capacity of patients with schizophrenia to consent to research: taking stock. Schizophrenia Bulletin 32, 22–25.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, PS (2007). Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 357, 1834–1840.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, P, Grisso, P, Hill-Fotouhi, C (1997). The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients’ capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatric Services 48, 1415–1419.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, TL, Jennings, B, Kinney, ED, Levine, RJ (2002). Pharmaceutical research involving the homeless. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27, 547–564.Google Scholar
Bernabe, RD, Van Thiel, GJ, Van Delden, JJ (2016). What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics? BMC Medical Ethics 17, 23.Google Scholar
Buxton, M, Hanney, S, Jones, T (2004). Estimating the economic value to societies of the impact of health research: a critical review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82, 733–739.Google Scholar
Chambers, M, Gallagher, A, Borschmann, R, Gillard, S, Turner, K, Kantaris, X (2014). The experiences of detained mental health service users: issues of dignity in care. BMC Medical Ethics 15, 50.Google Scholar
Charles, A, Rid, A, Davies, H, Draper, H (2016). Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics 42, 246–252.Google Scholar
Conus, P, Berk, M, Cotton, S, Kader, L, Macneil, C, Hasty, M, Hallam, K, Lambert, M, Murphy, B, McGorry, P (2015). Olanzapine or chlorpromazine plus lithium in first episode psychotic mania: an 8-week randomised controlled trial. European Psychiatry 30, 975–982.Google Scholar
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2007). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. CIOMS: Geneva2002. In External Resources Pubmed/Medline (NLM).Google Scholar
Cummings, JL, Lyketsos, CG, Peskind, ER, Porsteinsson, AP, Mintzer, JE, Scharre, DW, Jose, E, Agronin, M, Davis, CS, Nguyen, U (2015). Effect of dextromethorphan-quinidine on agitation in patients with Alzheimer disease dementia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314, 1242–1254.Google Scholar
da Conceicao, PO, Nascimento, PP, Mazetto, L, Alonso, NB, Yacubian, EMT, de Araujo Filho, GM (2013). Are psychiatric disorders exclusion criteria for video-EEG monitoring and epilepsy surgery in patients with mesial temporal sclerosis? Epilepsy & Behavior 27, 310–314.Google Scholar
de Jonghe, A, van de Glind, EM, van Munster, BC, de Rooij, SE (2014). Underrepresentation of patients with pre-existing cognitive impairment in pharmaceutical trials on prophylactic or therapeutic treatments for delirium: a systematic review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 76, 193–199.Google Scholar
European Commission (2009). Challenging futures of science in society: emerging trends and cutting-edge issues. Monitoring Activities of Science in Society Expert Group European Commission, Brussels.Google Scholar
European Council (2001). Directive 2001/20/EC Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research Regulation (EU), No 536/2014. European Council.Google Scholar
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2014). Clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. No. 536/2014 OJ L158. European Council.Google Scholar
Eynan, R, Bergmans, Y, Antony, J, Cutcliffe, JR, Harder, HG, Ambreen, M, Balderson, K, Links, PS (2014). The effects of suicide ideation assessments on urges to self-harm and suicide. Crisis 35, 123–131.Google Scholar
Fertig, E, Fureman, BE, Bergey, GK, Brodie, MA, Hesdorffer, DC, Hirtz, D, Kossoff, EH, LaFrance, WC, Versavel, M, French, J (2014). Inclusion and exclusion criteria for epilepsy clinical trials – recommendations from the April 30, 2011 NINDS workshop. Epilepsy Research 108, 825–832.Google Scholar
Førde, R, Norvoll, R, Hem, MH, Pedersen, R (2016). Next of kin’s experiences of involvement during involuntary hospitalisation and coercion. BMC Medical Ethics 17, 76.Google Scholar
Freedman, B, Fuks, A, Weijer, C (1992). Demarcating research and treatment. Clinical Research 40, 653–660.Google Scholar
Frew, PM, Saint-Victor, DS, Isaacs, MB, Kim, S, Swamy, GK, Sheffield, JS, Edwards, KM, Villafana, T, Kamagate, O, Ault, K (2014). Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices. Clinical Infectious Diseases 59, S400–S407.Google Scholar
Fry, C, Dwyer, R (2001). For love or money? An exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research. Addiction 96, 1319–1325.Google Scholar
Gurrera, RJ, Karel, MJ, Azar, AR, Moye, J (2007). Agreement between instruments for rating treatment decisional capacity. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 15, 168–173.Google Scholar
Gysels, M, Shipman, C, Higginson, IJ (2008). Is the qualitative research interview an acceptable medium for research with palliative care patients and carers? BMC Medical Ethics 9, 7.Google Scholar
Hall, S, Longhurst, S, Higginson, IJ (2009). Challenges to conducting research with older people living in nursing homes. BMC Geriatrics 9, 38.Google Scholar
Head, MG, Walker, SL, Nalabanda, A, Bostock, J, Cassell, JA (2015). Researching scabies outbreaks among people in residential care and lacking capacity to consent: a case study. Public Health Ethics, Published online 16 April 2015. doi:10.1093/phe/phv011.Google Scholar
Hietanen, P, Aro, AR, Holli, K, Absetz, P (2000). Information and communication in the context of a clinical trial. European Journal of Cancer 36, 2096–2104.Google Scholar
Humphreys, K (2014). A review of the impact of exclusion criteria on the generalizability of schizophrenia treatment research. Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses 20, 1–25.Google Scholar
Humphreys, K, Weisner, C (2000). Use of exclusion criteria in selecting research subjects and its effect on the generalizability of alcohol treatment outcome studies. American Journal of Psychiatry 157, 588–594.Google Scholar
Irish Council for Bioethics (2004). Guidance on Operational Procedures for Research Ethics Committees, The Irish Council for Bioethics Academy House, 19 Dawson St, Dublin 2. (http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Operational_Procedures1.pdf). Accessed 11 November 2017.Google Scholar
Kipnis, K (2001). Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy. In: Report on Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants 2, Commissioned Papers and Staff Analysis, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Online Ethics Center for Engineering 6/15/2006 OEC. (http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/RespResearch/ResResources/nbacindex/33959/hkipnis.aspx). Accessed 11 November 2017.Google Scholar
Kirino, S, Suzuki, T, Takeuchi, H, Mimura, M, Uchida, H (2017). Representativeness of clinical PET study participants with schizophrenia: a systematic review. Journal of Psychiatric Research 88, 72–79.Google Scholar
Kleiderman, E, Avard, D, Black, L, Diaz, Z, Rousseau, C, Knoppers, BM (2012). Recruiting terminally ill patients into non-therapeutic oncology studies: views of health professionals. BMC Medical Ethics 13, 33.Google Scholar
Kost, RG, Lee, LM, Yessis, J, Wesley, RA, Henderson, DK, Coller, BS (2013). Assessing participant-centered outcomes to improve clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine 369, 2179.Google Scholar
Lecouturier, J, Rodgers, H, Ford, GA, Rapley, T, Stobbart, L, Louw, SJ, Murtagh, MJ (2008). Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views. BMC Medical Ethics 9, 9.Google Scholar
Li, RH, Wacholtz, MC, Barnes, M, Boggs, L, Callery-D’Amico, S, Davis, A, Digilova, A, Forster, D, Heffernan, K, Luthin, M (2016). Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: a tool for protocol writers and ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics 42, 229–234.Google Scholar
Locock, L, Smith, L (2011). Personal experiences of taking part in clinical trials – a qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling 84, 303–309.Google Scholar
Maas, AI, Steyerberg, EW, Marmarou, A, McHugh, GS, Lingsma, HF, Butcher, I, Lu, J, Weir, J, Roozenbeek, B, Murray, GD (2010). IMPACT recommendations for improving the design and analysis of clinical trials in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Neurotherapeutics 7, 127–134.Google Scholar
Marson, DC, Ingram, KK, Cody, HA, Harrell, LE (1995). Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer’s disease under different legal standards: a prototype instrument. Archives of Neurology 52, 949–954.Google Scholar
McDonald, K, Kidney, C, Patka, M (2013). ‘You need to let your voice be heard’: research participants’ views on research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 57, 216–225.Google Scholar
Mental Capacity Act (2005). c.9, Part 1, s 30-34 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/section/30). Accessed 11 November 2017.Google Scholar
Misra, S, Socherman, R, Hauser, P, Ganzini, L (2008). Appreciation of research information in patients with bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders 10, 635–646.Google Scholar
Moore, A, Donnelly, A (2015). The job of ‘ethics committees’. Journal of Medical Ethics, Published Online 13 November 2015. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102688.Google Scholar
Moore, LW, Miller, M (1999). Initiating research with doubly vulnerable populations. Journal of Advanced Nursing 30, 1034–1040.Google Scholar
Morán-Sánchez, I, Luna, A, Sánchez-Muñoz, M, Aguilera-Alcaraz, B, Pérez-Cárceles, MD (2016). Decision-making capacity for research participation among addicted people: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Ethics 17, 3.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2011). Service user experience in adult mental health: improving the experience of care for people using adult NHS mental health services: Clinical guideline [CG136]: Research Recommendations.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2015). Violence and aggression: short-term management in mental health, health and community settings: NICE guideline [NG10]: Research Recommendations.Google Scholar
Newman, E, Walker, EA, Gefland, A (1999). Assessing the ethical costs and benefits of trauma-focused research. General Hospital Psychiatry 21, 187–196.Google Scholar
Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. (2010). Ethical Review and Children’s Research in Ireland. The National Children’s Strategy Research Series. The Stationery Office: Dublin.Google Scholar
Oireachtas (2013). Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Bill. (http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2013/8313/b8313d.pdf).Google Scholar
Oireachtas (2015). Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (Ireland), Houses of the Oireachtas, Dublin, 2015. (https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2015/a6415.pdf). Accessed 11 November 2017.Google Scholar
Olsen, DP, Mahrenholz, D (2000). IRB-identified ethical issues in nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing 16, 140–148.Google Scholar
Pentz, RD, Flamm, AL, Sugarman, J, Cohen, MZ, Daniel Ayers, G, Herbst, RS, Abbruzzese, JL (2002). Study of the media’s potential influence on prospective research participants’ understanding of and motivations for participation in a high-profile phase I trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20, 3785–3791.Google Scholar
Porteri, C, Petrini, C (2015). Research involving subjects with Alzheimer’s disease in Italy: the possible role of family members. BMC Medical Ethics 16, 12.Google Scholar
Reijula, E, Halkoaho, A, Pietilä, A-M, Selander, T, Kälviäinen, R, Keränen, T (2015). Therapeutic misconception correlates with willingness to participate in clinical drug trials among patients with epilepsy; need for better counseling. Epilepsy & Behavior 48, 29–34.Google Scholar
Roberts, LW (1998). The ethical basis of psychiatric research: conceptual issues and empirical findings. Comprehensive Psychiatry 39, 99–110.Google Scholar
Roberts, LW, Roberts, B (1999). Psychiatric research ethics: an overview of evolving guidelines and current ethical dilemmas in the study of mental illness. Biological Psychiatry 46, 1025–1038.Google Scholar
Rogers, B (1990). Ethics and research. AAOHN Journal 38, 581–585.Google Scholar
Rose, D, Russo, J, Wykes, T (2013). Taking part in a pharmacogenetic clinical trial: assessment of trial participants understanding of information disclosed during the informed consent process. BMC Medical Ethics 14, 34.Google Scholar
Sanci, LA, Sawyer, SM, Weller, PJ, Bond, LM, Patton, GC (2004). Youth health research ethics: time for a mature-minor clause? Medical Journal of Australia 180, 336–338.Google Scholar
Schneider, LS, Olin, JT, Lyness, SA, Chui, HC (1997). Eligibility of Alzheimer’s disease clinic patients for clinical trials. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 45, 923–928.Google Scholar
Schwenzer, KJ (2008). Protecting vulnerable subjects in clinical research: children, pregnant women, prisoners, and employees. Respiratory Care 53, 1342–1349.Google Scholar
Shepherd, V (2016). Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: the impact of research regulation on ‘evidence biased’ medicine. BMC Medical Ethics 17, 55.Google Scholar
Sigman, GS, O’Connor, C (1991). Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine. The Journal of Pediatrics 119, 520–525.Google Scholar
Staphorst, MS, Hunfeld, JA, van de Vathorst, S (2017). Are positive experiences of children in non-therapeutic research justifiable research benefits? Journal of Medical Ethics 43, 530–534.Google Scholar
Sutton, LB, Erlen, JA, Glad, JM, Siminoff, LA (2003). Recruiting vulnerable populations for research: revisiting the ethical issues. Journal of Professional Nursing 19, 106–112.Google Scholar
Ulrich, CM, Wallen, GR, Grady, C (2002). Research vulnerability and patient advocacy: balance-seeking perspectives for the clinical nurse scientist? Nursing Research 51, 71.Google Scholar
UyBico, SJ, Pavel, S, Gross, CP (2007). Recruiting vulnerable populations into research: a systematic review of recruitment interventions. Journal of General Internal Medicine 22, 852–863.Google Scholar
Vallely, A, Lees, S, Shagi, C, Kasindi, S, Soteli, S, Kavit, N, Vallely, L, McCormack, S, Pool, R, Hayes, RJ (2010). How informed is consent in vulnerable populations? Experience using a continuous consent process during the MDP301 vaginal microbicide trial in Mwanza, Tanzania. BMC Medical Ethics 11, 10.Google Scholar
van Lent, M, Rongen, GA, Out, HJ (2014). Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review. BMC Medical Ethics 15, 83.Google Scholar
Van Spall, HG, Toren, A, Kiss, A, Fowler, RA (2007). Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 297, 1233–1240.Google Scholar
Verástegui, EL (2006). Consenting of the vulnerable: the informed consent procedure in advanced cancer patients in Mexico. BMC Medical Ethics 7, 13.Google Scholar
Wang, S-B, Wang, Y-Y, Ungvari, GS, Ng, CH, Wu, R-R, Wang, J, Xiang, Y-T (2016). The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools for assessing decision-making capacity in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Research 183, 56–63.Google Scholar
Welch, MJ, Lally, R, Miller, JE, Pittman, S, Brodsky, L, Caplan, AL, Uhlenbrauck, G, Louzao, DM, Fischer, JH, Wilfond, B (2015). The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials. Clinical Trials 12, 503–510.Google Scholar
Willison, DJ, Steeves, V, Charles, C, Schwartz, L, Ranford, J, Agarwal, G, Cheng, J, Thabane, L (2009). Consent for use of personal information for health research: do people with potentially stigmatizing health conditions and the general public differ in their opinions? BMC Medical Ethics 10, 10.Google Scholar
Woolfall, K, Frith, L, Gamble, C, Young, B (2013). How experience makes a difference: practitioners’ views on the use of deferred consent in paediatric and neonatal emergency care trials. BMC Medical Ethics 14, 45.Google Scholar
World Medical Association (2001). World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 79, 373.Google Scholar
Yamal, J-M, Robertson, CS, Rubin, ML, Benoit, JS, Hannay, HJ, Tilley, BC (2014). Enrollment of racially/ethnically diverse participants in traumatic brain injury trials: effect of availability of exception from informed consent. Clinical Trials 11, 187–194.Google Scholar
Yanos, PT, Stanley, BS, Greene, CS (2009). Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge. Psychiatric Services 60, 374–383.Google Scholar