Medical Research Involving Children - Giving Weight to Children's Views

The quality of health care for children depends much on the availability of relevant results from medical research with children as subjects. Yet, because of their vulnerability and assumed incompetence to take part in decision-making, children have often been excluded from taking part in medical research, so as to prevent them from harm. Empirical data on children's competence to consent to such research used to be rare, but recent developments in this field have created more insights in the myths and realities concerning minor patients' capacities to decide on medical research participation. Against the background of relevant international, European and domestic legal frameworks concerning the rights of children as participants in medical research, this article goes into instruments such as MacCAT-CR, a semi-structured interview format useable as a competence assessment tool for clinical research involving children. On the basis of this, several recommendations are defined to enhance such research, as these may do sufficient justice to the health interests and the capacities of children, while at the same time supporting researchers and child research participants when facing decisions about pediatric research options

Breaking bad news:what parents would like you to know

OBJECTIVE: Breaking bad news about life-threatening and possibly terminal conditions is a crucial part of paediatric care for children in this situation. Little is known about how the parents of children with life-threatening conditions experience communication of bad news. The objective of this study is to analyse parents' experiences (barriers and facilitators) of communication of bad news. DESIGN: A qualitative study consisting of a constant comparative analysis of in-depth interviews conducted with parents. SETTING: The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four parents-bereaved and non-bereaved-of 44 children (aged 1-12 years, 61% deceased) with a life-threatening condition. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Based on parents' experiences, the following 10 barriers to the communication of bad news were identified: (1) a lack of (timely) communication, (2) physicians' failure to ask parents for input, (3) parents feel unprepared during and after the conversation, (4) a lack of clarity about future treatment, (5) physicians' failure to voice uncertainties, (6) physicians' failure to schedule follow-up conversations, (7) presence of too many or unknown healthcare professionals, (8) parental concerns in breaking bad news to children, (9) managing indications of bad news in non-conversational contexts, and (10) parents' misunderstanding of medical terminology. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows healthcare professionals how parents experience barriers in bad news conversations. This mainly concerns practical aspects of communication. The results provide practical pointers on how the communication of bad news can be improved to better suit the needs of parents. From the parents' perspective, the timing of conversations in which they were informed that their child might not survive was far too late. Sometimes, no such conversations ever took place

Feasibility of an Assessment Tool for Children\u27s Competence to Consent to Predictive Genetic Testing: a Pilot Study

Knowledge on children\u27s capacities to consent to medical treatment is limited. Also, age limits for asking children\u27s consent vary considerably between countries. Decision-making on predictive genetic testing (PGT) is especially complicated, considering the ongoing ethical debate. In order to examine just age limits for alleged competence to consent in children, we evaluated feasibility of a standardized assessment tool, and investigated cutoff ages for children\u27s competence to consent to PGT. We performed a pilot study, including 17 pediatric outpatients between 6 and 18 years at risk for an autosomal dominantly inherited cardiac disease, eligible for predictive genetic testing. The reference standard for competence was established by experts trained in the relevant criteria for competent decision-making. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) served as index test. Data analysis included raw agreement between competence classifications, difference in mean ages between children judged competent and judged incompetent, and estimation of cutoff ages for judgments of competence. Twelve (71 %) children were considered competent by the reference standard, and 16 (94 %) by the MacCAT-T, with an overall agreement of 76 %. The expert judgments disagreed in most cases, while the MacCAT-T judgments agreed in 65 %. Mean age of children judged incompetent was 9.3 years and of children judged competent 12.1 years (p = .035). With 90 % sensitivity, children younger than 10.0 years were judged incompetent, with 90 % specificity children older than 11.8 years were judged competent. Feasibility of the MacCAT-T in children is confirmed. Initial findings on age cutoffs are indicative for children between the age of 12 and 18 to be judged competent for involvement in the informed consent process. Future research on appropriate age-limits for children\u27s alleged competence to consent is needed

Key factors in children's competence to consent to clinical research

Background: Although law is established on a strong presumption that persons younger than a certain age are not competent to consent, statutory age limits for asking children's consent to clinical research differ widely internationally. From a clinical perspective, competence is assumed to involve many factors including the developmental stage, the influence of parents and peers, and life experience. We examined potential determining factors for children's competence to consent to clinical research and to what extent they explain the variation in competence judgments. Methods: From January 1, 2012 through January 1, 2014, pediatric patients aged 6 to 18 years, eligible for clinical research studies were enrolled prospectively at various in- and outpatient pediatric departments. Children's competence to consent was assessed by MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Potential determining child variables included age, gender, intelligence, disease experience, ethnicity and socio-economic status (SES). We used logistic regression analysis and change in explained variance in competence judgments to quantify the contribution of a child variable to the total explained variance. Contextual factors included risk and complexity of the decision to participate, parental competence judgment and the child's or parents decision to participate. Results: Out of 209 eligible patients, 161 were included (mean age, 10.6 years, 47.2 % male). Age, SES, intelligence, ethnicity, complexity, parental competence judgment and trial participation were univariately associated with competence (P∈∈0.05). Conclusions: Age is the factor that explaines most of to the variance in children's competence to consent, followed by intelligence. Experience with disease did not affect competence in this study, nor did other variables. Clinical trial registration: Development and use of a standardized instrument for assessing children's competence to consent in drug trials: Are legally established age limits valid?, NTR3918