Institutions as an ethical locus of research prioritisation

Ensuring that clinical trials, once launched, successfully complete and generate useful knowledge is an important and indeed ethically imperative goal, given the risks and burdens borne by research participants. Since there are insufficient willing research participants to power all the trials that...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Authors: Gelinas, Luke (Author) ; Lynch, Holly Fernandez (Author) ; Bierer, Barbara (Author) ; Cohen, I. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: BMJ Publ. 2017
In: Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2017, Volume: 43, Issue: 12, Pages: 816-818
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000caa a22000002 4500
001 181615685X
003 DE-627
005 20230428063451.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220908s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2017-104165  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)181615685X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP181615685X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Gelinas, Luke  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
109 |a Gelinas, Luke 
245 1 0 |a Institutions as an ethical locus of research prioritisation 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Ensuring that clinical trials, once launched, successfully complete and generate useful knowledge is an important and indeed ethically imperative goal, given the risks and burdens borne by research participants. Since there are insufficient willing research participants to power all the trials that are currently undertaken,1 addressing underenrolment will require prioritisation decisions that reduce the number of trials competing for participants. While there are multiple levels at which research priority-setting can and does take place, competition between trials often plays out in real time at the institutional or site level, where complex decisions must be made about how to manage overlapping trials in ways that balance different considerations, including the risk of non-completion. We sought to explore what research institutions in particular might ethically do to mitigate the risk that competition between trials will contribute to recruitment shortfalls.Against this backdrop, we appreciate the thoughtful replies to our article and are especially encouraged that all three respondents acknowledge the importance and indeed necessity of setting research priorities in ways that respect the rights and interests of various parties. The key question raised by the commentaries primarily concerns not whether research prioritisation should take place but rather how it is best accomplished. In what follows, we clarify our argument in the original article, and then focus on several points raised in the commentaries regarding the role of institutions in research priority-setting.Our approach is animated by the risk that competition between clinical trials for the same population of participants can be a cause of underenrolment when there are insufficient participants to meet the statistical needs of all open studies. In such situations, one or more of the competing studies will fail to meet recruitment targets, reducing their statistical ability to answer the research question. There are strong ethical reasons to avoid … 
601 |a Institution 
700 1 |a Lynch, Holly Fernandez  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Bierer, Barbara  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Cohen, I.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 43(2017), 12, Seite 816-818  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:43  |g year:2017  |g number:12  |g pages:816-818 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/26879627  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104165  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/43/12/816.abstract  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 43  |j 2017  |e 12  |h 816-818 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4185610793 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 181615685X 
LOK |0 005 20220908053715 
LOK |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#4111F781A8F035886B835B2F2350A392B14B858D 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/26879627 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw