Reasons for Participation in Pain Research: Can They Indicate a Lack of Informed Consent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the self-reported reasons for participation in the clinical research of chronic low back pain and to evaluate those reasons in the context of informed consent and the concept of therapeutic misconception. This is the belief that research participation is equivalent to clinical care. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study with semistructured interviews. SETTING: Phone interviews with subjects with chronic low back pain after they completed a double-blind controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two of 60 (86%) randomized controlled trial completers. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent had more than one reason for study participation, including the following: to contribute to research; to seek relief of pain (both short- and long-term); to try a different drug; monetary remuneration; and to have their pain taken seriously. An initial altruistic reason for participation was often followed later in the interview by reasons of personal benefit. In most cases, the single question, "why did you participate?" was insufficient to reveal these multiple reasons. "Personal benefit" had many individual meanings, framed in the context of an illness narrative of coping with chronic pain. Despite reasons of personal benefit, subjects were still able to make the distinction between research and clinical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the adequacy of informed consent requires a thorough understanding of how subjects viewed a study and their reasons for participation. Quantitative-based surveys may not capture the complexities of reasons for study participation. Reasons of personal benefit, seemingly contradictory reasons for participation, or overriding desire for relief may all affect the quality of informed consent. Yet, these issues may not automatically signal the presence of TM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.576 | 0.791 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".