2130The patient in clinical research: disposable guinea pig or involved actor?

Abstract Background The request for informed consent to join a clinical trial often creates mistrust and hesitation in the patient who should be enrolled. Methods In the last ten years of cardiovascular clinical research we asked an informed consent to 2,586 patients. 59% agreed to join clinical tri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European heart journal Vol. 40; no. Supplement_1
Main Authors: Cosmi, D, Mariottoni, B, Cosmi, F
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford University Press 01-10-2019
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Abstract Abstract Background The request for informed consent to join a clinical trial often creates mistrust and hesitation in the patient who should be enrolled. Methods In the last ten years of cardiovascular clinical research we asked an informed consent to 2,586 patients. 59% agreed to join clinical trials, 40% refused. The 1% initially accepted and then withdrew the consent. We asked all the patients who refused the consent to answer a brief interview about the reasons for rejection. Patients who refused to join clinical trials were relatively young (mean age 62±5) and had a high level of education; 619 (60%) had a high school diploma or a degree. Results Of 1031 patients, 629 (61%), accepted to answer the interview; 176 (28%) answered they refused on relatives', friends' or other doctors' advices, or after Internet searches; 157 (25%) answered they didn't agree about how the trials were carried out (double blind control procedure, use of placebo, ecc); 126 (20%) didn't trust official medicine. 63 (10%) couldn't guarantee their presence at the controls. 69 (11%) didn't want to undergo additional medical examinations. 31 (5%) had previous bad research experiences (feeling like a guinea pig, ecc). 7 (about 1%) refused for other reasons. Table 1. Acceptance or refusal to join cardiological intervention or observational clinical trials in the last 10 years Informed consent Immediately after reading and Principal Investigator's explanation After discussion with family, GP or Internet searches Total Accepted 914 (35%) 608 (24%) 1522 (29%) Initially accepted with subsequent withdrawal before randomization 1 (0.03%) 30 (1.2%) 31 (1%) Initially accepted with subsequent withdrawal after randomization 0 2 (0.07%) 2 (0.07%) Refused 151 (6%) 880 (34%) 1.031 (40%) Total 1.066 (41%) 1.520 (59%) 2.586 (100%) Conclusions Recruitment into clinical research studies is still a major challenge; patients are not fully aware of the importance of participation in clinical research studies for the development and implementation of medical advances. Paradoxically, people who refuse to participate in a trial are young and have a high level of education. Researcher's duty is to involve the patient in the trial and clarify the benefits of join the research.
AbstractList Abstract Background The request for informed consent to join a clinical trial often creates mistrust and hesitation in the patient who should be enrolled. Methods In the last ten years of cardiovascular clinical research we asked an informed consent to 2,586 patients. 59% agreed to join clinical trials, 40% refused. The 1% initially accepted and then withdrew the consent. We asked all the patients who refused the consent to answer a brief interview about the reasons for rejection. Patients who refused to join clinical trials were relatively young (mean age 62±5) and had a high level of education; 619 (60%) had a high school diploma or a degree. Results Of 1031 patients, 629 (61%), accepted to answer the interview; 176 (28%) answered they refused on relatives', friends' or other doctors' advices, or after Internet searches; 157 (25%) answered they didn't agree about how the trials were carried out (double blind control procedure, use of placebo, ecc); 126 (20%) didn't trust official medicine. 63 (10%) couldn't guarantee their presence at the controls. 69 (11%) didn't want to undergo additional medical examinations. 31 (5%) had previous bad research experiences (feeling like a guinea pig, ecc). 7 (about 1%) refused for other reasons. Table 1. Acceptance or refusal to join cardiological intervention or observational clinical trials in the last 10 years Informed consent Immediately after reading and Principal Investigator's explanation After discussion with family, GP or Internet searches Total Accepted 914 (35%) 608 (24%) 1522 (29%) Initially accepted with subsequent withdrawal before randomization 1 (0.03%) 30 (1.2%) 31 (1%) Initially accepted with subsequent withdrawal after randomization 0 2 (0.07%) 2 (0.07%) Refused 151 (6%) 880 (34%) 1.031 (40%) Total 1.066 (41%) 1.520 (59%) 2.586 (100%) Conclusions Recruitment into clinical research studies is still a major challenge; patients are not fully aware of the importance of participation in clinical research studies for the development and implementation of medical advances. Paradoxically, people who refuse to participate in a trial are young and have a high level of education. Researcher's duty is to involve the patient in the trial and clarify the benefits of join the research.
Abstract Background The request for informed consent to join a clinical trial often creates mistrust and hesitation in the patient who should be enrolled. Methods In the last ten years of cardiovascular clinical research we asked an informed consent to 2,586 patients. 59% agreed to join clinical trials, 40% refused. The 1% initially accepted and then withdrew the consent. We asked all the patients who refused the consent to answer a brief interview about the reasons for rejection. Patients who refused to join clinical trials were relatively young (mean age 62±5) and had a high level of education; 619 (60%) had a high school diploma or a degree. Results Of 1031 patients, 629 (61%), accepted to answer the interview; 176 (28%) answered they refused on relatives', friends' or other doctors' advices, or after Internet searches; 157 (25%) answered they didn't agree about how the trials were carried out (double blind control procedure, use of placebo, ecc); 126 (20%) didn't trust official medicine. 63 (10%) couldn't guarantee their presence at the controls. 69 (11%) didn't want to undergo additional medical examinations. 31 (5%) had previous bad research experiences (feeling like a guinea pig, ecc). 7 (about 1%) refused for other reasons. Table 1. Acceptance or refusal to join cardiological intervention or observational clinical trials in the last 10 years Informed consent Immediately after reading and Principal Investigator's explanation After discussion with family, GP or Internet searches Total Accepted 914 (35%) 608 (24%) 1522 (29%) Initially accepted with subsequent withdrawal before randomization 1 (0.03%) 30 (1.2%) 31 (1%) Initially accepted with subsequent withdrawal after randomization 0 2 (0.07%) 2 (0.07%) Refused 151 (6%) 880 (34%) 1.031 (40%) Total 1.066 (41%) 1.520 (59%) 2.586 (100%) Conclusions Recruitment into clinical research studies is still a major challenge; patients are not fully aware of the importance of participation in clinical research studies for the development and implementation of medical advances. Paradoxically, people who refuse to participate in a trial are young and have a high level of education. Researcher's duty is to involve the patient in the trial and clarify the benefits of join the research.
Author Cosmi, D
Mariottoni, B
Cosmi, F
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: D
  surname: Cosmi
  fullname: Cosmi, D
  organization: Gubbio-Gualdo Tadino Hospital, Perugia, Italy
– sequence: 2
  givenname: B
  surname: Mariottoni
  fullname: Mariottoni, B
  organization: Santa Margherita in Valdichiana Hospital, Cortona, Italy
– sequence: 3
  givenname: F
  surname: Cosmi
  fullname: Cosmi, F
  organization: Santa Margherita in Valdichiana Hospital, Cortona, Italy
BookMark eNqNkMtOwzAURC1UJNLCJyD5B9LaseMHG4QqXlIFmy7YRbfJTeMqxJGdVoKvJ1UQazYzmzmzOHMy63yHhNxytuTMihUeQ4MQhsMKm28tzZIxIy5IwvMsS62S-YwkjNs8Vcp8XJF5jAc2ThRXCXnLuGDbBmkPg8NuoK6jZes6V0JLA8bxt2zuaOVi7yPsWqT7o-sQaO_21IdxfvLtCSsK5eDD_TW5rKGNePPbC7J9etyuX9LN-_Pr-mGTlkaLVPKdkEwqXiujAXhtra40ap5ZyNGyzEiuWQVaaDUGF0KYXNYCtVAIkIkFyafbMvgYA9ZFH9wnhK-Cs-LspPhzUkxOirOTkWMT54_9P5EfE5BqEA
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019
Copyright_xml – notice: Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
DOI 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0083
DatabaseName CrossRef
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
DatabaseTitleList CrossRef

DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
DocumentTitleAlternate ESC Congress 2019 together with World Congress of Cardiology 31 August – 4 September 2019, Paris - France
EISSN 1522-9645
ExternalDocumentID 10_1093_eurheartj_ehz748_0083
10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0083
GroupedDBID ---
-E4
.2P
.I3
.XZ
.ZR
08P
0R~
18M
1TH
29G
2WC
4.4
482
48X
53G
5GY
5RE
5VS
5WA
5WD
70D
AABZA
AACZT
AAJKP
AAMVS
AAOGV
AAPNW
AAPQZ
AAPXW
AARHZ
AASNB
AAUAY
AAUQX
AAVAP
ABEUO
ABIXL
ABKDP
ABNHQ
ABNKS
ABOCM
ABPTD
ABQLI
ABQNK
ABWST
ABXVV
ABZBJ
ACGFO
ACGFS
ACPRK
ACUFI
ACUTJ
ACUTO
ACYHN
ADBBV
ADEYI
ADEZT
ADGZP
ADHKW
ADHZD
ADIPN
ADJQC
ADOCK
ADQBN
ADRIX
ADRTK
ADVEK
ADYVW
ADZXQ
AEGPL
AEGXH
AEJOX
AEKSI
AEMDU
AENEX
AENZO
AEPUE
AETBJ
AEWNT
AFFZL
AFIYH
AFOFC
AFXAL
AFXEN
AGINJ
AGKEF
AGQXC
AGSYK
AGUTN
AHMBA
AHXPO
AIAGR
AIJHB
AJEEA
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALUQC
APIBT
APWMN
ATGXG
AXUDD
BAWUL
BAYMD
BCGUY
BCRHZ
BEYMZ
BHONS
BTRTY
BVRKM
C45
CDBKE
CS3
CZ4
DAKXR
DIK
DILTD
D~K
E3Z
EBS
EE~
EJD
EMOBN
ENERS
F5P
F9B
FECEO
FLUFQ
FOEOM
FOTVD
FQBLK
GAUVT
GJXCC
GX1
H13
H5~
HAR
HW0
HZ~
IOX
J21
KAQDR
KBUDW
KOP
KQ8
KSI
KSN
L7B
M-Z
M41
M49
MHKGH
ML0
N9A
NGC
NOMLY
NOYVH
NU-
O9-
OAUYM
OAWHX
OB3
OCZFY
ODMLO
OGROG
OJQWA
OJZSN
OK1
OPAEJ
OVD
OWPYF
P2P
PAFKI
PEELM
PQQKQ
Q1.
Q5Y
R44
RD5
ROL
ROX
ROZ
RUSNO
RW1
RXO
SEL
TCURE
TEORI
TJX
W8F
WOQ
X7H
YAYTL
YKOAZ
YXANX
ZKX
~91
AAYXX
CITATION
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c873-41b340461f687aa1f997d7e7129a5e90284170da7376a731333854f3e736eaa23
ISSN 0195-668X
IngestDate Thu Sep 12 18:57:33 EDT 2024
Wed Sep 11 04:51:48 EDT 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue Supplement_1
Keywords Research Ethics
Language English
License This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c873-41b340461f687aa1f997d7e7129a5e90284170da7376a731333854f3e736eaa23
ParticipantIDs crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehz748_0083
oup_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehz748_0083
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 20191001
2019-10-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2019-10-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2019
  text: 20191001
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationTitle European heart journal
PublicationYear 2019
Publisher Oxford University Press
Publisher_xml – name: Oxford University Press
SSID ssj0008616
Score 2.3536906
Snippet Abstract Background The request for informed consent to join a clinical trial often creates mistrust and hesitation in the patient who should be enrolled....
SourceID crossref
oup
SourceType Aggregation Database
Publisher
Title 2130The patient in clinical research: disposable guinea pig or involved actor?
Volume 40
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://sdu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV07T8MwELbaIiEWxFOUlzywoCrQxEkcsyCgrUAIFjqwRU7jtEGiRaVl4NdzfsQNBQEdWKzIcqz47svd-XQPhI4CL0x8QQKHkazp-LQHvxSNMoekLEh4wgIuZDby9QO9f4xabb9dqdhbv537V07DHPBaZs4uwG27KUzAM_AcRuA6jH_iuwfqQvLeFEyV_gyb_Wgq-wykGyDNZcCWSpzqT8HU5I2XvK-j00FivYEdqjrxzAf-Fc572Qh70ih_kcr1eH3OP4UR38FVfDQB-1JNX35Z2Cl7HVxm49cmP2Uzlh2VLHDCULUNBj1jhCtcfFmoy0cW0lcXazIoU51MlVs0dr-V77r2lZiO1Smf5PPgnfoyHlb3w5krnv3rO1W05IGIksGgrZtbq8OjUDXNtacocr8YObUbnZa2-WTVyEzJkpHSXUOr5naBLzQs1lFFDDfQ8p2Jn9hE9wYd2KAD50NcoAMX6DjDM2xgjQ0M2MCjMS6wgRU2zrdQt9PuXl07pqOG04socXw3Ib6ssJ-FEeXczRijKRUUbD4eCFnHx3dpM-UUtA4MLiEkCvyMCEpCwblHtlFtOBqKHYSbAtb1mqknIlADPTdKPCJTjUIecPlyHZ0UBIlfdN2UWMc7kNhSMNYUjCUF6-gYyPa3tbsLrN1DKzP87qPaZDwVB6j6mk4PFcs_AMSGdEY
link.rule.ids 315,782,786,27935,27936
linkProvider Flying Publisher
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=2130The+patient+in+clinical+research%3A+disposable+guinea+pig+or+involved+actor%3F&rft.jtitle=European+heart+journal&rft.au=Cosmi%2C+D&rft.au=Mariottoni%2C+B&rft.au=Cosmi%2C+F&rft.date=2019-10-01&rft.pub=Oxford+University+Press&rft.issn=0195-668X&rft.eissn=1522-9645&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=Supplement_1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093%2Feurheartj%2Fehz748.0083&rft.externalDocID=10.1093%2Feurheartj%2Fehz748.0083
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0195-668X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0195-668X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0195-668X&client=summon