Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package. RESULTS: Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate. CONCLUSION: Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct

Valorizing the 'Irulas' traditional knowledge of medicinal plants in the Kodiakkarai Reserve Forest, India

A mounting body of critical research is raising the credibility of Traditional Knowledge (TK) in scientific studies. These studies have gained credibility because their claims are supported by methods that are repeatable and provide data for quantitative analyses that can be used to assess confidence in the results. The theoretical importance of our study is to test consensus (reliability/replicable) of TK within one ancient culture; the Irulas of the Kodiakkarai Reserve Forest (KRF), India. We calculated relative frequency (RF) and consensus factor (Fic) of TK from 120 Irulas informants knowledgeable of medicinal plants. Our research indicates a high consensus of the Irulas TK concerning medicinal plants. The Irulas revealed a diversity of plants that have medicinal and nutritional utility in their culture and specific ethnotaxa used to treat a variety of illnesses and promote general good health in their communities. Throughout history aboriginal people have been the custodians of bio-diversity and have sustained healthy life-styles in an environmentally sustainable manner. However this knowledge has not been transferred to modern society. We suggest this may be due to the asymmetry between scientific and TK, which demands a new approach that considers the assemblage of TK and scientific knowledge. A greater understanding of TK is beginning to emerge based on our research with both the Irulas and Malasars; they believe that a healthy lifestyle is founded on a healthy environment. These aboriginal groups chose to share this knowledge with society-at-large in order to promote a global lifestyle of health and environmental sustainability

The ethics of animal research: a survey of pediatric health care workers

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric health care workers (HCW) often perform, promote, and advocate use of public funds for animal research (AR). We aim to determine whether HCW consider common arguments (and counterarguments) in support (or not) of AR convincing. DESIGN: After development and validation, an e-mail survey was sent to all pediatricians and pediatric intensive care unit nurses and respiratory therapists (RTs) affiliated with a Canadian University. We presented questions about demographics, support for AR, and common arguments (with their counterarguments) to justify the moral permissibility (or not) of AR. Responses are reported using standard tabulations. Responses of pediatricians and nurses/RTs were compared using Chi-square, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: Response rate was 53/115(46%) (pediatricians), and 73/120(61%) (nurses/RTs). Pediatricians and nurses/RTs are supportive of AR. Most considered ‘benefits arguments’ sufficient to justify AR; however, most acknowledged that counterarguments suggesting alternative research methods may be available, or that it is unclear why the same ‘benefits arguments’ do not apply to using humans in research, significantly weakened ‘benefits arguments’. Almost all were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘characteristics of non-human-animals arguments’, including that non-human-animals may not be sentient, or are simply property. Most were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR by ‘human exceptionalism’ arguments, including that humans have more advanced mental abilities, are of a special ‘kind’, can enter into social contracts, or face a ‘lifeboat situation’. Counterarguments explained much of this, including that not all humans have these more advanced abilities [the argument from species overlap], and that the notion of ‘kind’ is arbitrary [e.g., why are we not of the kind ‘sentient animal’ or ‘subject-of-a-life’]. Pediatrician and nurse/RT responses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents were not convinced of the moral permissibility of AR when given common arguments and counterarguments from the literature. HCW should seriously consider arguments on both sides of the AR debate

How is the economic crisis socially assessed?

Based on the Social Representation Theory, the purpose of this article is to explore how lay-people consider both the economic crisis and risk, and to link these social representations to behavior. The article offers an original approach with the articulation of two studies about the social construction of risk and crises. It also contributes to the development of research methods for studying the connections between representations and practical implications. Based on this, the impact of the social representation of the crisis on the perceived ability to act is approached. The first study focuses on free-association tasks, with two distinct target terms: ‘risk’ and ‘crisis’. The structural approach, with a prototypical analysis, allowed the identification of two different representations: (1) for risk, ‘danger’ is the central element; (2) for crisis, ‘economy’ and ‘money’ constitute the main components of the representation. The second study investigates the links between the two previously detected structures and their relations with the perceived ability to act in a financial crisis context. Some aspects of social knowledge were found to have an impact on perceived ability to act

Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is the leading cause of fatal head injuries in children younger than 2 years. A multidisciplinary team bases this diagnosis on history, physical examination, imaging and laboratory findings. Because the etiology of the injury is multifactorial (shaking, shaking and impact, impact, etc.) the current best and inclusive term is AHT. There is no controversy concerning the medical validity of the existence of AHT, with multiple components including subdural hematoma, intracranial and spinal changes, complex retinal hemorrhages, and rib and other fractures that are inconsistent with the provided mechanism of trauma. The workup must exclude medical diseases that can mimic AHT. However, the courtroom has become a forum for speculative theories that cannot be reconciled with generally accepted medical literature. There is no reliable medical evidence that the following processes are causative in the constellation of injuries of AHT: cerebral sinovenous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischemic injury, lumbar puncture or dysphagic choking/vomiting. There is no substantiation, at a time remote from birth, that an asymptomatic birth-related subdural hemorrhage can result in rebleeding and sudden collapse. Further, a diagnosis of AHT is a medical conclusion, not a legal determination of the intent of the perpetrator or a diagnosis of murder. We hope that this consensus document reduces confusion by recommending to judges and jurors the tools necessary to distinguish genuine evidence-based opinions of the relevant medical community from legal arguments or etiological speculations that are unwarranted by the clinical findings, medical evidence and evidence-based literature