Teaching medical students to discern ethical problems in human clinical research studies.

PURPOSE: Investigators and institutional review boards are entrusted with ensuring the conduct of ethically sound human studies. Assessing ethical aspects of research protocols is a key skill in fulfilling this duty, yet no empirically validated method exists for preparing professionals to attain this skill. METHOD: The authors performed a randomized controlled educational intervention, comparing a criteria-based learning method, a clinical-research- and experience-based learning method, and a control group. All 300 medical students enrolled at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine in 2001 were invited to participate. After a single half-hour educational session, a written posttest of ability to detect ethical problems in hypothetical protocol vignettes was administered. The authors analyzed responses to ten protocol vignettes that had been evaluated independently by experts. For each vignette, a global assessment of the perceived significance of ethical problems and the identification of specific ethical problems were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-three medical students (27%) volunteered: 50 (60%) were women and 55 (66%) were first- and second-year students. On global assessments, the criteria-focused group perceived ethical problems as more significant than did the other two groups (p < .02). Students in the criteria-focused group were better able than students in the control group (p < .03) to discern specific ethical problems, more closely resembling expert assessments. Unexpectedly, the group focused on clinical research participants identified fewer problems than did the control group (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The criteria-focused intervention produced enhanced ethical evaluation skills. This work supports the potential value of empirically derived methods for preparing professionals to discern ethical aspects of human studies.

Perspectives on use and protection of genetic information in work settings: results of a preliminary study.

The societal use of genetic information raises ethical concerns, and the views of working persons regarding genetic information have received little attention. We performed an empirical project to characterize perspectives of 63 employees at two sites who expressed strong interest in learning about and protecting their personal genetic information. Genetic data were seen as more sensitive than other health data, and disclosure of genetic susceptibility was perceived as having negative consequences. This study suggests the value of exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders most directly affected by genetic applications across diverse societal settings.

What is ethically important in clinical research? A preliminary study of attitudes of 73 psychiatric faculty and residents.

The ethical caliber of psychiatric research ultimately rests upon the shoulders of psychiatric clinicians and investigators who perform protocols and are directly responsible for the welfare of study volunteers. Little is known, however, about ethically relevant attitudes of psychiatrists toward human research. Working as part of a larger study, we surveyed all psychiatry faculty and residents at one institution in 1999 regarding the relative importance of 12 elements in the ethical conduct of human research. Responses of 73 participants were analyzed, and three factors emerged: Safeguards and Scientific Merit, Investigator Integrity and Relationship, and Patient Benefit. Safeguards and Scientific Merit, as a set, were the most salient considerations for both psychiatry faculty and residents. We found that residents placed greater importance on all factors and nearly every element than did faculty. Future research is needed to clarify the understanding of the perspectives and priorities of different stakeholders involved in human studies.

Schizophrenia patients' and psychiatrists' perspectives on ethical aspects of symptom re-emergence during psychopharmacological research participation.

RATIONALE: Study designs involving medication-free intervals have become the subject of controversy in the current dialogue on the ethics of serious mental-illness research. METHODS: Schizophrenia patients ( n=59; response rate 75%; 48% inpatients) and psychiatrists ( n=70; response rate 83%) responded to ten questions about a hypothetical scenario in which a schizophrenia study participant experienced the re-emergence of serious symptoms during the "wash-out" phase of a psychopharmacological trial. Patients provided their personal views, and psychiatrists gave their personal views and made predictions as to how schizophrenia patients in general would respond. RESULTS: Schizophrenia patients and psychiatrists judged the hypothetical protocol as moderately harmful. Both expressed relatively low likelihood of willingness to participate in the study, given this potential outcome. Schizophrenia patients and psychiatrists found the decision fairly easy. Psychiatrists underestimated the level of harm and overestimated the difficulty of the decision as perceived by schizophrenia patients. Schizophrenia patients acknowledged that the offer of money and request by their doctor or family would increase the likelihood of their participation, and psychiatrists accurately predicted these responses. In hypothetical decisions about the symptomatic study participant, 38% of patients and 39% of psychiatrists said they would allow him to leave the hospital. A majority of both groups (63% and 52%, respectively) indicated that medication should be given despite the study participant's objection. Psychiatrists incorrectly predicted this response, expecting instead that most schizophrenia patients would support the discharge request and few would support involuntary administration of medication. Patients and psychiatrists offered similar reasons for participation decisions but differed in their strategies for handling the situation. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest potential strengths of decisionally capable schizophrenia patients in assessing ethically important design elements of psychopharmacological trials. Implications for informed consent for research, expectations of the therapeutic obligations of clinical investigators, and the role of psychiatric advance directives in psychopharmacological research are outlined.