Abstract
Rationale
Training in research ethics is crucial for psychiatric investigators. Addressing ethical dimensions of human subjects research requires knowledge about the rules and norms governing research; sensitivity to ethical implications of actions; and skills in ethics problem solving. Investigators in training who are physicians have the additional challenge of developing identities as investigators that sometimes conflict with their identities as physicians.
Objectives
To propose a curriculum for psychiatric research ethics training.
Methods
Review of literature on ethics education and presentation of a curricular approach to research ethics training for psychiatric investigators.
Results
Research ethics can be learned and should be taught. Involvement of active investigators in teaching research ethics is important. While core topics of psychiatric research ethics training have not yet been identified, there are available models from which to draw. Research ethics should be introduced early and integrated throughout the research training period. Lack of resources and institutional support can be obstacles to development of comprehensive research ethics curricula. Small-group, case-based discussion is best for teaching ethics problem-solving skills. Examples of teaching module ideas and a fully developed sample teaching module are presented.
Conclusions
There is opportunity for creative models for teaching psychiatric research ethics. Work is needed to identify core topics, target pedagogical strategies to trainees at different levels, and develop evaluation methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Baldwin DC Jr, Adamson TE, Self DJ, Sheehan TJ, Oppenberg AA (1996) Moral reasoning and malpractice. A pilot study of orthopedic surgeons. Am J Orthop 25:481–484
Bebeau MJ (1993) Designing an outcome-based ethics curriculum for professional education: strategies and evidence of effectiveness. J Moral Educ 22:313–326
Bebeau MJ (2001) Does this integrated law and ethics curriculum promote ethical thinking? J Am Coll Dent 68:27–30
Bebeau MJ, Thoma SJ (1994) The impact of a dental ethics curriculum on moral reasoning. J Dent Educ 58:684–692
Bebeau MJ, Pimple KD, Muskavitch KMT, Borden SL, Smith DH (1995) Moral reasoning in scientific research: cases for teaching and assessment. Indiana University. (Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~poynter/mr.pdf; accessed 12 April 2002)
Bonnie RJ (1997) Research with cognitively impaired subjects. Unfinished business in the regulation of human research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 54:105–111
Chen DT, Miller FG, Rosenstein DL (2002) Enrolling decisionally impaired adults in clinical research. Med Care 40:V20–V29
Chen DT, Miller FG, Rosenstein DL (2003a) Ethical aspects of research into the etiology of autism. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 9:48–53
Chen DT, Miller FG, Rosenstein DL (2003b) Clinical research and the physician–patient relationship. Ann Intern Med 138:669–672
Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C (2000) What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283:2701–2711
Finkel DL, Arney WR (1995) Educating for freedom: the paradox of pedagogy. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey
Fischer BA, Zigmond MJ (2001) Promoting responsible conduct in research through "survival skills" workshops: some mentoring is best done in a crowd. Sci Eng Ethics 7:563–587
Hope T, Fulford KW (1994) The Oxford Practice Skills Project: teaching ethics, law and communication skills to clinical medical students. J Med Ethics 20:229–234
Hyman SE (1999) Protecting patients, preserving progress: ethics in mental health illness research. Acad Med 74:258–259
Kass NE, Sugarman J, Faden R, Schoch-Spana M (1996) Trust, the fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep 26:25–29
Ketefian S (2001) The relationship of education and moral reasoning to ethical practice: a meta-analysis of quantitative studies. Sch Inq Nurs Pract 15:3–18
Klein JE, Fleischman AR (2002) The private practicing physician-investigator: ethical implications of clinical research in the office setting. Hastings Cent Rep 32:22–26
Kolata G, Eichenwald K (1999) For the uninsured, drug trials are health care. In: New York Times 22 Jun A1, C12
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS (2002) The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 40:V55–V63
Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP (1998) The importance of expanding current training in the responsible conduct of research. Acad Med 73:1249–1254
Michels R (1999) Are research ethics bad for our mental health? N Engl J Med 340:1427–1430
Miles SH, Lane LW, Bickel J, Walker RM, Cassel CK (1989) Medical ethics education: coming of age. Acad Med 64:705–714
Miller FG, Rosenstein DL, DeRenzo EG (1998) Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA 280:1449–1454
Morin K, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA Jr, Morse LJ, O'Bannon JM 3rd, Goldrich MS, Ray P, Weiss M, Sade RM, Spillman MA (2002) Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 287:78–84
National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) (1998) Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Rockville, MD
Nelson RM, Merz JF (2002) Voluntariness of consent for research: an empirical and conceptual review. Med Care 40:V69–V80
NIH (1992) Reminder and update: requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award institutional training grants. (http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not92–236.html; accessed 9 April 2002)
NIH (2000) Required education in the protection of human research participants (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00–039.html; accessed 9 April 2002)
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) (2000) PHS policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR)—suspended. (http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/finalpolicy.asp; accessed 9 April 2002)
Pace C, Miller FG, Danis M (2003) Enrolling the uninsured in clinical trials: an ethical perspective. Crit Care Med 31:S121–125
Parker LS (2002) Ethical issues in bipolar disorders pedigree research: privacy concerns, informed consent, and grounds for waiver. Bipolar Disord 4:1–16
Rest JR (1982) A psychologist looks at the teaching of ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 12:29–36
Roberts LW (2002) Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism. Am J Psychiatry 159:705–712
Roberts LW, Mines J, Voss C, Koinis C, Mitchell S, Obenshain SS, McCarty T (1999) Assessing medical students' competence in obtaining informed consent. Am J Surg 178:351–355
Roberts LW, Geppert CM, Brody JL (2001) A framework for considering the ethical aspects of psychiatric research protocols. Compr Psychiatry 42:351–363
Rosenstein DL, Miller FG, Rubinow DR (2001) A curriculum for teaching psychiatric research bioethics. Biol Psychiatry 50:802–808
Rowley BD, Baldwin DC Jr, Bay RC, Cannula M (2000) Can professional values be taught? A look at residency training. Clin Orthop 378:110–114
Sachs GA, Siegler M (1993) Teaching scientific integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Acad Med 68:871–875
Savulescu J, Crisp R, Fulford KW, Hope T (1999) Evaluating ethics competence in medical education. J Med Ethics 25:367–374
Self DJ, Baldwin DC Jr (1998) Does medical education inhibit the development of moral reasoning in medical students? A cross-sectional study. Acad Med 73:S91–S93
Self DJ, Olivarez M (1996) Retention of moral reasoning skills over the four years of medical education. Teach Learn Med 8:195–199
Self DJ, Olivarez M, Baldwin DC Jr (1998a) Clarifying the relationship of medical education and moral development. Acad Med 73:517–520
Self DJ, Olivarez M, Baldwin DC Jr (1998b) The amount of small-group case-study discussion needed to improve moral reasoning skills of medical students. Acad Med 73:521–523
Sheehan TJ, Husted SD, Candee D, et al. (1980) Moral judgment as a predictor of clinical performance. Eval Health Prof 3:393–404
Sheehan TJ, Candee D, Willms J, et al. (1985) Structural equation models of moral reasoning and physician performance. Eval Health Prof 8:379–400
Singer PA, Robb A, Cohen R, Norman G, Turnbull J (1996) Performance-based assessment of clinical ethics using an objective structured clinical examination. Acad Med 71:495–498
Worrall BB, Chen DT, Meschia JF (2001) Ethical and methodological issues in pedigree stroke research. Stroke 32:1242–1249
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Brad Worrall MD, MSc; Don Rosenstein MD; Frank Miller PhD; and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments during the preparation of this article. This article was written while the author was with the Program in Research Bioethics, National Institute of Mental Health and the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health. The ideas and opinions expressed are the author's own. They do not represent any position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, or Department of Health and Human Services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The ideas and opinions expressed are the author's own. They do not represent any position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service or Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix
Appendix
Sample teaching module: clinical practice versus clinical research
Main objective
To introduce psychiatrists to differences between clinical practice and clinical research and differences between professional identities of physician-investigators and physicians
Background reading
Background material (for instructors)
While individuals may receive treatment in the context of both clinical practice and clinical research, the orientation of physicians is different in these two contexts. Ethically, clinical practice is oriented toward providing patients with individualized care by physicians who are dedicated to the patient's best interests. The risks of diagnostic procedures and treatment interventions are justified solely by anticipated medical benefits to the patient. The guiding ethos is referred to as "personal care." Some aspects of the personal care ethos may operate in clinical research. However, as scientists, physician-investigators are interested in patients primarily as members of groups from which data can be obtained for answering scientific questions. Clinical research can include research procedures that impose discomforts or risks of harm on patient-subjects that are not compensated by personal diagnostic or therapeutic benefits; these are justified, in the language of the Federal regulations governing research, by "the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result." In clinical trials, patient-subjects may be randomized to treatment alternatives (or placebo); patient-subjects and physician-investigators may be blind to which alternative is received; and protocol-driven limitations may be placed on the types and dosages of treatments. These features depart significantly from personal care. While patient-subjects may receive benefit from research participation, that is not the primary purpose of research.
Lack of appreciation for these differences on the part of patient-subjects has been described and can contribute to thinking that the research has been designed to provide them with personalized medical benefit, a misunderstanding that has been called "therapeutic misconception" (Lidz and Appelbaum 2002; Kass et al. 1996). It is important that physician-investigators and personal physicians are alert to the potential for therapeutic misconception (Chen et al. 2003b)
While the distinctions between clinical practice and research also profoundly affect what is considered ethical with regard to research design, the layers of independent review that human subjects research undergoes serves in part to assure that these ethical implications are adequately considered. However, no matter how extensive the regulations and oversight bodies are, appropriate handling of the ethical issues that arise within the investigator-subject relationship relies heavily on the physician-investigator (Miller et al. 1998; Klein and Fleischman 2002) (Table 2).
Case for discussion
Ms. Freed is a 37-year-old actress who has been married for 16 years and has a 13-year-old son. Ms. Freed has bipolar affective disorder type I, a history of two psychiatric hospitalizations, and has been relatively stable on valproic acid, mirtazepine, and olanzapine for 2 years without a full-blown manic episode. She still has episodes of depression that, while not incapacitating, do not allow her to perform optimally. She dislikes the side effects of weight gain and hair loss associated with these medications. In addition, her glucose has been difficult to control. She had been stable on lithium for 9 years until she developed lithium-related renal dysfunction. For the following year, she had adequate trials of multiple other medication regimens with poor symptom control. Her first hospitalization occurred early in her course and resulted in an affective disorder diagnosis and contact with her psychiatrist, Dr. Jones, with whom she has remained in treatment for 11 years, in weekly psychotherapy and medication management. It was during the medication changes that she had her second hospitalization, which lasted almost 3 months for out-of-control behavior and poor judgment.
On the internet, she found a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial for a new mood stabilizer. She looked into the trial and discovered that, in order to qualify, she cannot be stable on medication. The investigator instituted that requirement because the trial includes a medication wash-out period and a placebo control. Ms. Freed is desperate to try a new medication. She contacts the investigator, Dr. Smith, and gets a screening appointment. She requests a copy of the consent form to look over prior to her screening appointment. At her regular appointment with Dr. Jones, she mentions that she wishes to enroll in this clinical trial and asks for advice.
Sample issues for case discussion (encourage discussion of reasons why answers are given)
-
Ms. Freed:
-
What questions should she ask the physician-investigator? Her own psychiatrist?
-
What impact might this study have on her husband and family?
-
What should count as a legitimate reason for wanting to participate? Hope for personal benefit? Altruism? Belief that new medications are always better?
-
-
Dr. Jones (personal psychiatrist):
-
How should she respond to Ms. Freed's request? Is she allowed to give advice?
-
Should it matter if Ms. Freed is currently hypomanic or manic? Depressed? In what ways?
-
How can she assess if Ms. Freed has a "therapeutic misconception?"
-
How can she help Ms. Freed decide on assigning a surrogate decision-maker and creating research advance directives?
-
How important is it if this trial is in-patient versus out-patient? What if the trial did not allow continuation of psycho-therapy?
-
Should Dr. Jones continue to monitor Ms. Freed's clinical course? Would this be a violation of boundaries?
-
-
Dr. Smith (physician-investigator):
-
What should Dr. Smith do if Ms. Freed is hypomanic or manic? Should Dr. Smith ask for Dr. Jones' opinion regarding enrollment?
-
Should Dr. Smith allow Ms. Freed to continue seeing Dr. Jones during the trial?
-
What should Dr. Smith do if Dr. Jones contacts her and asks for information about Ms. Freed during the course of her enrollment? Does it matter if Dr. Jones is calling because Mr. Freed is concerned about his wife?
-
Should Dr. Smith evaluate whether Ms. Freed has a "therapeutic misconception?"
-
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, D.T. Curricular approaches to research ethics training for psychiatric investigators. Psychopharmacology 171, 112–119 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1500-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1500-4