148 Reporting clinical trial findings as an ethical responsibility to research participants: a qualitative interview study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Objectives</h3> Approximately 40% of randomized controlled trials are not published. Advocates of full reporting of clinical trials have argued nonpublication betrays trial participants and violates an implicit contract between participants and researchers. However, trial participant views on the importance of reporting research findings and trial investigator views on the responsibility to report findings are unclear. We conducted a qualitative interview study to understand how the experiences and views of trial participants, trial investigators, and others relate to whether researchers have a duty to trial participants to report research findings. <h3>Method</h3> We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario. Participants eligible for an interview included clinical trial participants who had taken part in a trial while at least 18 years of age in the 5 years prior to the interview, clinical trial investigators and research coordinators with experience in drug research, research administrators with knowledge of policy and practice related to dissemination of clinical trial findings or relations with trial sponsors, and research ethics board members with at least 1 year of experience in ethics review of clinical trials. The study included 34 participants, including 10 clinical trial participants, 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, and 3 research ethics board members. Analytic strategies were informed by grounded theory, including initial coding, focused coding, and memo-writing to develop key themes. <h3>Results</h3> Most clinical trial participants felt that reporting clinical trial results is important. Accounts of trial participants suggested their contributions are part of a reciprocal relationship involving the expectation that research will advance medical knowledge. One trial participant asked: “If we’re doing the work, spending the dollars and not using that information to further medical science, then what was the point of doing all that work in the first place?” Similarly, comments from trial investigators suggested that reporting trial results is part of reciprocity with trial participants and is a necessary part of honouring informed consent. Accounts of trial investigators suggested that when drug trials are not reported, this may undermine informed consent in subsequent trials by withholding information on harms or efficacy relevant to informed decisions on whether to conduct or enroll in future trials of similar drugs. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The views of trial participants, trial investigators, and others connected to clinical trial research in Canada suggested that researchers have an obligation to participants to report clinical trial results and that reporting results is necessary for honouring informed consent. Trial participants may consent to enter a trial with the understanding that research will benefit future patients. However, this consent is not respected when trial results are not reported and this potential benefit is not fulfilled. Research ethics boards could help ensure clinical trials are reported by auditing whether trials they have approved have been reported or by assisting research institutions to monitor and support reporting of clinical trials.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,506 | 0,767 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,023 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle