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...
Saved in:
Published in: | European heart journal Vol. 40; no. Supplement_1 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 |