How do parents experience being asked to enter a child in a randomised controlled trial?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As the number of randomised controlled trials of medicines for children increases, it becomes progressively more important to understand the experiences of parents who are asked to enrol their child in a trial. This paper presents a narrative review of research evidence on parents' experiences of trial recruitment focussing on qualitative research, which allows them to articulate their views in their own words.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Parents want to do their best for their children, and socially and legally their role is to care for and protect them yet the complexities of the medical and research context can challenge their fulfilment of this role. Parents are simultaneously responsible for their child and cherish this role yet they are dependent on others when their child becomes sick. They are keen to exercise responsibility for deciding to enter a child in a trial yet can be fearful of making the 'wrong' decision. They make judgements about the threat of the child's condition as well as the risks of the trial yet their interpretations often differ from those of medical and research experts. Individual pants will experience these and other complexities to a greater or lesser degree depending on their personal experiences and values, the medical situation of their child and the nature of the trial. Interactions at the time of trial recruitment offer scope for negotiating these complexities if practitioners have the flexibility to tailor discussions to the needs and situation of individual parents. In this way, parents may be helped to retain a sense that they have acted as good parents to their child whatever decision they make.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Discussing randomised controlled trials and gaining and providing informed consent is challenging. The unique position of parents in giving proxy consent for their child adds to this challenge. Recognition of the complexities parents face in making decisions about trials suggests lines for future research on the conduct of trials, and ultimately, may help improve the experience of trial recruitment for all parties.</p

Ethical issues, research and vulnerability : gaining the views of children and young people in residential care

Children and young people in residential care are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They may have experienced violence and physical, sexual or emotional abuse. They may be involved in offending or the misuse of drugs and alcohol. They are separated from their families and have to cope with living in a group situation with other young people and staff members. Children and young people in residential care also possess strengths, competencies and resilience. We have much to learn from their experiences and perspectives, both generally and surrounding their time in care. This paper will address the ethical issues which arise from gaining the views of children and young people in residential care, drawing on the experience of carrying out three studies in particular (Kendrick et al. 2004, The development of a residential unit working with sexually aggressive young men. In: H.G. Eriksson and T. Tjelflaat, eds. Residential care: horizons for the new century. Aldershot: Ashgate, 38-55; Docherty et al. 2006, Designing with care: interior design and residential child care. Farm7 and SIRCC. http://www.sircc.strath.ac.uk/publications/Designing_with_Care.pdf; Steckley, L. and Kendrick, A., 2005. Physical restraint in residential child care: the experiences of young people and residential workers. Childhoods 2005: Children and Youth in Emerging and Transforming Societies, University of Oslo, Norway, 29 June-3 July 2005, Steckley and Kendrick 2007, Young people's experiences of physical restraint in residential care: subtlety and complexity in policy and practice. In: M. Nunno, L. Bullard and D. Day, eds. For our own safety: examining the safety of high-risk interventions for children and young people. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, forthcoming). The paper will discuss: information, consent and choice about involvement in the research; confidentiality, privacy and safety. It will also explore some of the more complex issues of ethical good practice which arise from researching children in their own living space. The negotiation of children's time and space must be approached carefully, with consideration of their rights and wishes. Sensitivity to children and young people's priorities and preoccupations must be paramount

Familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is characterized by the development of many tens to thousands of adenomas in the rectum and colon during the second decade of life. FAP has an incidence at birth of about 1/8,300, it manifests equally in both sexes, and accounts for less than 1% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. In the European Union, prevalence has been estimated at 1/11,300-37,600. Most patients are asymptomatic for years until the adenomas are large and numerous, and cause rectal bleeding or even anemia, or cancer develops. Generally, cancers start to develop a decade after the appearance of the polyps. Nonspecific symptoms may include constipation or diarrhea, abdominal pain, palpable abdominal masses and weight loss. FAP may present with some extraintestinal manifestations such as osteomas, dental abnormalities (unerupted teeth, congenital absence of one or more teeth, supernumerary teeth, dentigerous cysts and odontomas), congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium (CHRPE), desmoid tumors, and extracolonic cancers (thyroid, liver, bile ducts and central nervous system). A less aggressive variant of FAP, attenuated FAP (AFAP), is characterized by fewer colorectal adenomatous polyps (usually 10 to 100), later age of adenoma appearance and a lower cancer risk. Some lesions (skull and mandible osteomas, dental abnormalities, and fibromas on the scalp, shoulders, arms and back) are indicative of the Gardner variant of FAP. Classic FAP is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner and results from a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis (APC) gene. Most patients (~70%) have a family history of colorectal polyps and cancer. In a subset of individuals, a MUTYH mutation causes a recessively inherited polyposis condition, MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), which is characterized by a slightly increased risk of developing CRC and polyps/adenomas in both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Diagnosis is based on a suggestive family history, clinical findings, and large bowel endoscopy or full colonoscopy. Whenever possible, the clinical diagnosis should be confirmed by genetic testing. When the APC mutation in the family has been identified, genetic testing of all first-degree relatives should be performed. Presymptomatic and prenatal (amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling), and even preimplantation genetic testing is possible. Referral to a geneticist or genetic counselor is mandatory. Differential diagnoses include other disorders causing multiple polyps (such as Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, familial juvenile polyps or hyperplastic polyposis, hereditary mixed polyposis syndromes, and Lynch syndrome). Cancer prevention and maintaining a good quality of life are the main goals of management and regular and systematic follow-up and supportive care should be offered to all patients. By the late teens or early twenties, colorectal cancer prophylactic surgery is advocated. The recommended alternatives are total proctocolectomy and ileoanal pouch or ileorectal anastomosis for AFAP. Duodenal cancer and desmoids are the two main causes of mortality after total colectomy, they need to be identified early and treated. Upper endoscopy is necessary for surveillance to reduce the risk of ampullary and duodenal cancer. Patients with progressive tumors and unresectable disease may respond or stabilize with a combination of cytotoxic chemotherapy and surgery (when possible to perform). Adjunctive therapy with celecoxib has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency in patients with FAP. Individuals with FAP carry a 100% risk of CRC; however, this risk is reduced significantly when patients enter a screening-treatment program

PSYCHO-LOGICAL FATE AND FREEDOM

A LFRED KORZYBSKI wanted a science of humanity. As the title and subtitle of his 1921 book indicate -Manhood of Humanity: The Science and Art of Human Engineering -this was not a disinterested, academic pursuit. Having suffered and seen the suffering of others on the battlefields of World War One, he felt a burning need to promote the growth of &quot;Human Engineering … the science and art of directing the energies and capacities of human beings to the advancement of human weal.&quot; (1) Without a purposeful, systematic, and cooperative effort to create such a science-art, he feared that the energies and capacities of human beings would more likely continue to advance human destructiveness and suffering. (Korzybski eventually abandoned the term &quot;human engineering&quot; and came up with the term general semantics (abbreviated as &quot;GS&quot;) to label the methodological fruits of his efforts toward such a science-art.) In Manhood, Korzybski sought to begin a solid foundation for the science of humanity by defining &quot;Man&quot; (used by him at that time as a neutral term for * Bruce I. Kodish, Ph.D., lives and works in Pasadena, California. A veteran scholar-teacher of general semantics, he also has a private practice in physical therapy and the Alexander Technique of posture-movement education

Development of a consensus operational definition of child assent for research

Abstract Background There is currently no consensus from the relevant stakeholders regarding the operational and construct definitions of child assent for research. As such, the requirements for assent are often construed in different ways, institutionally disparate, and often conflated with those of parental consent. Development of a standardized operational definition of assent would thus be important to ensure that investigators, institutional review boards, and policy makers consider the assent process in the same way. To this end, we describe a Delphi study that provided consensus from a panel of expert stakeholders regarding the definitions of child assent for research. Methods Based on current guidelines, a preliminary definition of assent was generated and sent out for review to a Delphi panel including pediatric bioethicists and researchers, Institutional Review Board members, parents, and individuals with regulatory/legal expertise. For each subsequent review, the process of summarizing and revising responses was repeated until consensus was achieved. Panelists were also required to rank order elements of assent that they believed were most important in defining the underlying constructs of the assent process (e.g., capacity for assent, disclosure). In providing these rankings, panelists were asked to frame their responses in the contexts of younger (≤ 11 yrs) and adolescents/older children (12-17 yrs) in non-therapeutic and therapeutic trials. Summary rankings of the most important identified elements were then used to generate written construct definitions which were sent out for iterative reviews by the expert panel. Results Consensus regarding the operational definition was reached by 14/18 (78%) of the panel members. Seventeen (94%) panelists agreed with the definitions of capacity for assent, elements of disclosure for younger children, and the requirements for meaningful assent, respectively. Fifteen (83%) members agreed with the elements of disclosure for adolescents/older children. Conclusions It is hoped that this study will positively inform and effect change in the way investigators, regulators, and IRBs operationalize the assent process, respect children’s developing autonomy, and in concert with parental permission, ensure the protection of children who participate in research.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136915/1/12910_2017_Article_199.pd