Article

Voluntariness of consent to research: a conceptual model.

College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, USA.
The Hastings Center Report (Impact Factor: 1.08). 01/2009; 39(1):30-9. DOI: 10.1353/hcr.0.0103
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A good deal of policy and practice in human subjects research aims to ensure that when subjects consent to research, they do so voluntarily. To date, however, voluntariness and its impairment have been poorly conceptualized and studied. The legal doctrine of informed consent could provide a useful model.

0 Followers
 · 
80 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX, VivitrolĀ®; Alkermes Inc.) is an injectable monthly sustained-release mu opioid receptor antagonist. XR-NTX is a potentially effective intervention for opioid use disorders and as relapse prevention among criminal justice system (CJS) populations. This 5-site open-label randomized controlled effectiveness trial examines whether XR-NTX reduces opioid relapse compared with treatment as usual (TAU) among community dwelling, non-incarcerated volunteers with current or recent CJS involvement. The XR-NTX arm receives 6 monthly XR-NTX injections at Medical Management visits; the TAU group receives referrals to available community treatment options. Assessments occur every 2weeks during a 24-week treatment phase and at 12- and 18-month follow-ups. The primary outcome is a relapse event, defined as either self-report or urine toxicology evidence of >10days of opioid use in a 28-day (4week) period, with a positive or missing urine test counted as 5days of opioid use. We describe the rationale, specific aims, and design of the study. Alternative design considerations and extensive secondary aims and outcomes are discussed. XR-NTX is a potentially important treatment and relapse prevention option among persons with opioid dependence and CJS involvement. gov: NCT00781898. Copyright Ā© 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Contemporary Clinical Trials 01/2015; 41. DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2015.01.005 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper seeks to examine the awareness of potential health hazards by using mobile phone among AIMST (Asian Institute of Medical sci-ence and technology) University students. This is a cross-sectional survey conducted by dis-tributing 'perception questionnaire'. Perception of health hazards and outcomes were compared by gender, age, course of study, preferred ear, number of calls and SMS daily, the brand of mobile phone and use of mobile phone acces-sory (Bluetooth and hands free). The overall perception of mobile phone hazard in AIMST university student was 62%.Most subjects agreed that mobile phone usage can cause headache, loss of mental attention and sleeping distur-bances and most disagree that mobile phone usage can cause constipation and diarrhea. Out of the 124 subjects who were aware of the side effects, 5% of the males and 10% of the females felt that there was no need to minimize the un-wanted effects. The paper is useful to the gen-eral population particularly to the students as the perceived health risk did not significantly deter students from using mobile phone. The reasons given by students for the continued usage of mobile phone in spite of their aware-ness of the associated hazards have been dis-cussed. This study offers new insight into level of awareness and perception of mobile phone hazard among University students.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Although most studies report high frequencies of consent to HIV tests, critics argue that clients are subject to pressure, that acceptors later indicate they could not have refused, and that provider-initiated HIV testing raises serious ethical issues. We examine the meaning of consent and why clients think they could not have refused. Methods Clients in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda were asked about consenting to HIV tests, whether they thought they could have refused and why. Textual responses were analyzed using qualitative and statistical methods. Results Among 926 respondents, 77% reported they could not have said no, but in fact, 60% actively consented to test, 24% had no objection and only 7% tested without consent. There were few significant associations between categories of consent and their covariates. Conclusions Retrospectively asking clients if they could have refused to test for HIV overestimates coercion. Triangulating qualitative and quantitative data suggests a considerable degree of agency.
    Journal of the International AIDS Society 03/2014; 17(1):18898. DOI:10.7448/IAS.17.1.18898 · 4.21 Impact Factor