Parents' perspectives on research involving children.

Dept. of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences (Impact Factor: 1.71). 02/2006; 111(1):73-86. DOI: 10.3109/2000-1967-025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Children's participation in research is essential for the development of safe and age-appropriate treatments. However, children's participation is limited. The aim of this study was to determine (1) mothers' and fathers' views on which agencies/persons should evaluate the level of acceptable risk for children and (2) parents' willingness to allow children to participate in research. Medical factors, sociodemographics, and research attitudes were related to willingness. The study used a cross-sectional and longitudinal design with 863 expectant parents (435 women; 428 men) consecutively recruited at gestational week 19 during routine ultrasound examination at 2 hospitals in Uppsala County, Sweden. 123 women at gestational week 34 were followed-up. Parental ratings of agencies/persons' degree of involvement in risk-evaluation for. child research participants and parents' willingness to allow children to participate in research were the main outcome measures. Most parents believed that more pediatric research was needed. Attitudes played a major role in willingness, indicating a potential for information that could modify willingness. Over 80% of mothers and fathers rated the attending physician as needing to be "fully involved" in risk evaluation for research participants. Parents' views contradict current trends in research ethics which place evaluation of risk in the hands of regional agencies. Instead, the majority of parents would like the decision to be individually based on the attending physicians advise. We conclude that children's participation in research could be improved by actively incorporating the attending physician and by educating the public so that research attitudes can be based on accurate information.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gaining research access to adolescents and young adults is not straightforward and involves layers of negotiation and administration. Experiences of accessing adolescents and young adults aged 13–21 years are described in this article. Issues raised for consideration are: identifying clinical gatekeepers; seeking ethical approval; making direct contact with adolescents and young adults (hereafter referred to as young people); and dealing with parents as gatekeepers. Refusal rates, participation rates, and reasons are also considered. The issues raised provide practical insights that may be helpful to other researchers aiming to access adolescents and young adults.
    Applied Nursing Research 01/2009; 22(1):63-67. · 1.14 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Critics argue that pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit is unethical because it treats children as mere means, exposing those who cannot consent to risks for the benefit of others. The present survey was designed to assess whether this claim is consistent with the views of adolescents who actually participate in research, or their parents. Interviews were conducted with adolescents participating in research at the NIH Clinical Center or Seattle Children's Hospital, and their parents, from June 2008 through April 2010. Interviews were completed with 177 of 186 adolescent/parent pairs (response rate= 95.2%). Overall, 90% of the adolescents and parents were willing to have the adolescent undergo a few extra blood draws, and 65% were willing to have the adolescent undergo an extra skin biopsy, for research purposes. The vast majority felt that the adolescents were making an important contribution to help others, and 80.8% of the adolescents felt proud to be doing so. Respondents overall were equally willing to have the adolescent face risks to help others in a research study or in a charitable activity. The views and experiences of these respondents do not support the claim that pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit treats subjects as mere means. Instead, the findings provide proof of principle for the claim that non-beneficial pediatric research involves a type of charitable activity which offers children the opportunity to contribute to a valuable project to help others.
    PEDIATRICS 09/2012; 130(4):692-9. DOI:10.1542/peds.2012-0068 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The spectrum of evidence imparted by the different clinical research designs ranges from ecological studies through observational epidemiological studies to randomized control trials (RCTs). This chapter addresses the definition of clinical research, the major aspects of clinical trials eg ethics, randomization, masking, recruitment and retention of subjects enrolled in a clinical trial, patients/subjects lost to follow-up during the trial etc. Although this chapter focuses on the weaknesses of clinical trials, it is emphasized that the randomized, placebocontrolled, double blind clinical trial is the design that yields the greatest level of scientific evidence. A researcher is in a gondola of a balloon that loses lift and lands in the middle of afield near a road. Of course, it looks like the balloon landed in the middle of nowhere. As the researcher ponders appropriate courses of action, another person wanders by. The researcher asks, ‘Where am I?’ The other person responds, ‘You are in the gondola of a balloon in the middle of a field.’ The researcher comments, ‘You must design clinical trials.’ ‘Well, that’ amazing, how did you know?’ ‘Your answer was correct and precise and totally useless.’
    Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons 05/2003; 88(5):43. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8486-7_3

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jul 29, 2014