Cancer Research Ethics and COVID‐19

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155925/1/onco13303_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155925/2/onco13303.pd

OncoLog Volume 45, Number 07/08, July/August 2000

Advances Allow Expanded Use of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation Use of Umbilical Cord Blood Expands Option of Transplantation to More Children House Call: Meeting Your Own Needs While Caring For Someone Else Protecting the Interests of Young Donors, by Rebecca Pentz, PhD, Clinical Ethicist Protocols: Clinical Trials of Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantshttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/oncolog/1087/thumbnail.jp

Patient and Surrogate Views of Community Consultation for Emergency Research

ObjectivePretrial community consultation (CC) is required for emergency research conducted under an exception from informed consent (EFIC) in the United States. CC remains controversial and challenging, and minimal data exist regarding the views of individuals enrolled in EFIC trials on this process. It is important to know whether participants perceive CC to be meaningful and, if so, whom they believe should be consulted.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from two studies interviewing patients and surrogates of two recent EFIC trials (PEER‐RAMPART and PEER‐ProTECT). These interviews included similar open‐ and closed‐ended questions regarding participants’ views of the importance of CC, the rationale for their responses, and their views regarding which populations should be included in consultation efforts. A template analytic strategy was used for qualitative analysis of textual data, and descriptive statistics were tabulated to characterize demographic data and instances of major themes.ResultsNinety percent of participants perceived CC to be valuable. Participants’ reasons for finding CC valuable clustered in two categories: 1) as a method of informing the public about the trial to be conducted and 2) as a way of obtaining input and feedback from the community. Participants cited the medical community (43%) and individuals with a connection to the study condition (41%) as the most important groups to involve in consultation efforts; only 5% suggested consulting the general public in the area where the research will be conducted.ConclusionParticipants in EFIC trials and their decision makers generally valued CC as a method of informing and seeking input from the community. Participants felt that the most appropriate groups to consult were the medical community and individuals with connections to the condition under study. Consultation efforts focused on these two groups, rather than the general public, may be more efficient and more meaningful to individuals involved in EFIC trials. These findings also reinforce the importance of the distinction between public disclosure and CC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139974/1/acem13265-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139974/2/acem13265_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139974/3/acem13265.pd

Balancing Ethical Goals in Challenging Individual Participant Scenarios Occurring in a Trial Conducted with Exception from Informed Consent

In 1996, federal regulations were put into effect that allowed enrollment of critically ill or injured patients into Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐regulated clinical trials using an exception from informed consent (EFIC) under narrowly prescribed research circumstances. Despite the low likelihood that a legally authorized representative (LAR) would be present within the interventional time frame, the EFIC regulations require the availability of an informed consent process, to be applied if an LAR is present and able to provide prospective consent for patient enrollment into the trial. The purpose of this article is to describe a series of unanticipated consent‐related questions arising when a potential surrogate decision‐maker appeared to be available at the time of patient enrollment into a trial proceeding under EFIC.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110828/1/acem12602.pd

Consulting Communities When Patients Cannot Consent: A Multi-Center Study of Community Consultation for Research in Emergency Settings

OBJECTIVE: To assess the range of responses to community consultation efforts conducted within a large network and the impact of different consultation methods on acceptance of exception from informed consent (EFIC) research and understanding of the proposed study. DESIGN: A cognitively pre-tested survey instrument was administered to 2,612 community consultation participants at 12 US centers participating in a multi-center trial of treatment for acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Survey nested within community consultation for a Phase III, randomized controlled trial of treatment for acute TBI conducted within a multi-center trial network and using EFIC. SUBJECTS: Adult participants in community consultation events. INTERVENTIONS: Community consultation efforts at participating sites. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acceptance of EFIC in general, attitude toward personal EFIC enrollment, and understanding of the study content were assessed. 54% of participants agreed EFIC was acceptable in the proposed study; 71% were accepting of personal EFIC enrollment. Participants in interactive versus non-interactive community consultation events were more accepting of EFIC in general (63% vs. 49%) and personal EFIC inclusion (77% vs. 67%). Interactive community consultation participants had high-level recall of study content significantly more often than non-interactive consultation participants (77% vs. 67%). Participants of interactive consultation were more likely to recall possible study benefits (61% vs. 45%) but less likely to recall potential risks (56% vs. 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Interactive community consultation methods were associated with increased acceptance of EFIC and greater overall recall of study information but lower recall of risks. There was also significant variability in EFIC acceptance among different interactive consultation events. These findings have important implications for IRBs and investigators conducting EFIC research and for community engagement efforts in research more generally

Code Status Discussions Between Attending Hospitalist Physicians and Medical Patients at Hospital Admission

BackgroundBioethicists and professional associations give specific recommendations for discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).ObjectiveTo determine whether attending hospitalist physicians' discussions meet these recommendations.DesignCross-sectional observational study on the medical services at two hospitals within a university system between August 2008 and March 2009.ParticipantsAttending hospitalist physicians and patients who were able to communicate verbally about their medical care.Main measuresWe identified code status discussions in audio-recorded admission encounters via physician survey and review of encounter transcripts. A quantitative content analysis was performed to determine whether discussions included elements recommended by bioethicists and professional associations. Two coders independently coded all discussions; Cohen's kappa was 0.64-1 for all reported elements.Key resultsAudio-recordings of 80 patients' admission encounters with 27 physicians were obtained. Eleven physicians discussed code status in 19 encounters. Discussions were more frequent in seriously ill patients (OR 4, 95% CI 1.2-14.6), yet 66% of seriously ill patients had no discussion. The median length of the code status discussions was 1 min (range 0.2-8.2). Prognosis was discussed with code status in only one of the encounters. Discussions of patients' preferences focused on the use of life-sustaining interventions as opposed to larger life goals. Descriptions of CPR as an intervention used medical jargon, and the indication for CPR was framed in general, as opposed to patient-specific scenarios. No physician quantitatively estimated the outcome of or provided a recommendation about the use of CPR.ConclusionsCode status was not discussed with many seriously ill patients. Discussions were brief, and did not include elements that bioethicists and professional associations recommend to promote patient autonomy. Local and national guidelines, research, and clinical practice changes are needed to clarify and systematize with whom and how CPR is discussed at hospital admission

OncoLog Volume 43, Number 02, February 1998

Genetic findings prompt cancer survivor to elect surgery Protocols: Radiotherapy Protocols Offer Treatment for Range of Sites and Types of Cancer Radiation oncology: targeting effective treatment House Call: Cancer: Is it in the Genes or in the Stars? DiaLog: Genetic Tests Demand New Answers by Rebecca D. Pentz, PhD, Clinical Ethicisthttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/oncolog/1059/thumbnail.jp