Moving Toward Evidence-Based Human Participant Protection

Article

Abstract

There is near universal recognition that human participant protection is both morally and practically essential for all forms of research involving humans. Yet most of the discourse around human participant protection has focussed on norms—rules, regulations and governance arrangements—rather than on the actual effectiveness of these norms in achieving their ends—protecting participants from undue risk and ensuring respectful treatment as well as advancing the generation of useful knowledge. In recent years there has been increasing advocacy for evidence-based human participant protection that would be grounded on the careful investigation of the effects of research on human participants. We offer an analysis of evidence-based protection and then focus on Canadian examples of research on evidence-based protection. We consider the prospects for such research being put into practice in Canada. Finally we connect our remarks to the theme of “the changing landscape of human participant protection.”

Keywords

Human participant protection Evidence Canadian research ethics Health research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the Canadian Institution of Health Research (CIHR) for providing grant funding for both the Centring the Human Subject in Health Research project and the Canadian Network for the Governance of Ethical Health Research Involving Humans. We would also like to acknowledge Kim Taylor for her assistance in preparing this manuscript.

References

  1. Beagan, B., & McDonald, M. (2005). Evidence-based practice of ethics review. Health Law Review, 13(2–3), 62–68.Google Scholar
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (1998, with 2000, 2002, and 2005 amendments). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.Google Scholar
  3. Civil Code of Québec (C.C.Q.), S.Q. (1991). c. 64.Google Scholar
  4. Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corrigan, O., & Tutton, R. (2006). What’s in a name? Subjects, volunteers, participants and activists in clinical research. Clinical Ethics, 1(2), 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, S., & McDonald, M. (2007). Research on research ethics: must the ethics researcher become an ethics cop, consultant, or conduit? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 94–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, S., Kazubowski-Houston, M., & Nisker, J. (2009). Genetics on stage: public engagement in health policy development on preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Social Science & Medicine, 68(8), 1472–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyregrov, K. (2004). Bereaved parent’s experience of research participation. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emanuel, E., Wood, A., Fleischman, A., Bowen, A., Getz, K., Grady, C., et al. (2004). Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 131(4), 282–291.Google Scholar
  10. Enzle, M. E., & Schmaltz, R. (2005). Ethics review of multi-centre clinical trials in Canada. Health Law Review, 13(2&3), 51–57.Google Scholar
  11. Felt, U., Milena, D., Strassnig, M., & Wagner, U. (2009). Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness & Medicine, 13, 87–106.Google Scholar
  12. FRSQ, Comité d’éthique de la recherche et d’intégrité scientifique du FRSQ, FRSQ Standards on Human Health Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity, (Québec: Fonds de la Recherche en santé du Québec, July 2008).Google Scholar
  13. Fry, C. (2008). A comprehensive evidence-based approach is needed for promoting participation in health research: a commentary on Williams. Social Science & Medicine, 66(7), 1457–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Health Research Ethics Authority Act, S.N.L. (2006). c. H-1.2.Google Scholar
  15. Hébert, P., & Saginur, R. (2009). Research ethics review: do it once and do it well. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 180(6), 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2008). Is there a better way to ask patients whether there is “anything else”? The Journal of Family Practice, 57(3), 149.Google Scholar
  17. Jay, F., Chantler, T., Lees, A., & Pollard, A. J. (2007). Children’s participation in vaccine research: parents’ views. Paediatric Nursing, 19(8), 14–18.Google Scholar
  18. Katz, A., & Fox, K. (2004). The process of informed consent: What’s at stake. Boston: Children’s Hospital Boston.Google Scholar
  19. Kimmelman, J., Weijer, C., & Meslin, E. M. (2009). Helsinki discords: FDA, ethics, and international drug trials. Lancet, 373(9657), 13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lavori, P. W., Sugarman, J., Hays, M. T., & Feussner, J. R. (1999). Improving informed consent in clinical trials: a duty to experiment. Controlled Clinical Trials, 20(2), 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lenk, C., Radenbach, K., Dahl, M., & Wiesemann, C. (2004). Non-therapeutic research with minors: how do chairpersons of German research ethics committees decide? Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald, M. (2005). Canadian governance for ethical research involving humans. Health Law Review, 13(2–3), 5–12.Google Scholar
  23. McDonald, M. (2009). From code to policy statement: creating Canadian policy for ethical research involving humans. Health Law Review, 17(2–3), 12–25.Google Scholar
  24. McDonald, M. et al. (2000). The Governance of Health Research Involving Human Subjects. Law Commission of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  25. McDonald, M., Townsend, A., Cox, S., Damiano Paterson, N., & Lafreniere, D. (2008). Trust in health research relationships: accounts of human subjects. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(4), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moreno, J. (2001). Goodbye to all that: the end of moderate protectionism in human subjects research. Hastings Center Report, 31(3), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, N., & Balmer, B. (2006). Volunteer human subjects’ understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 998–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morris, M. C., Nadkarni, V. M., Ward, F. R., & Nelson, R. M. (2004). Exception from informed consent for pediatric resuscitation research: community consultation for a trial of brain cooling after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Pediatrics, 114(3), 776–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mulder, S., Rance, S., Suarez, M., & Condori, M. (2000). Unethical ethics? Reflections on intercultural research practices. Reproductive Health Matters, 8(15), 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York, NY: New York Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Riskin, A., Tamir, A., Kugelman, A., Hemo, M., & Bader, D. (2008). Is visual assessment a reliable way to estimate bilirubin levels? The Journal of Family Practice, 57(8), 504.Google Scholar
  32. Sackett, D., Rosenberg, W., Gray, J., Hayes, R., & Richardson, W. (1996). Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.Google Scholar
  33. Schuppli, C., & McDonald, M. (2005). Contrasting modes of governance for the protection of humans and animals in Canada: lessons for reform. Health Law Review, 13(2–3), 97–106.Google Scholar
  34. Seltzer, S. E., Sullivan, D. C., Hillman, B. J., & Staab, E. V. (2002). Factors affecting patient enrollment in radiology clinical trials: a case study of the American college of radiology imaging network. Academic Radiology, 9(7), 862–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shah, S., Whittle, A., Wilfond, B., Gensler, G, & Wendler, D. (2004) How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA:The Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(4), 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sieber, J. E. (2008). Earning trust. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(4), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sugarman, J. (2004). Determining the appropriateness of including children in clinical research: how thick is the ice? Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(4), 494–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagener, D., Sporer, A., Simmerling, M., Flome, J., An, C., & Curry, S. (2004). Human participants challenges in youth-focused research: perspectives and practices of IRB administrators. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weinfurt, K. P., Hall, M. A., Friedman, J. Y., Hardy, C., Fortune-Greeley, A. K., Lawlor, J. S., et al. (2008). Effects of disclosing financial interests on participation in medical research: a randomized vignette trial. American Heart Journal, 156(4), 689–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Woodgate, R. L., & Edwards, M. (2008). Parents’ and children’s perspectives of the risks to involving children in research: It's a family affair. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Canadian Bioethics Society Conference. Retrieved.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maurice Young Centre for Applied EthicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations