Exploring the consent process among pregnant and breastfeeding women taking part in a maternal vaccine clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials presents unique challenges for the informed consent process. We explored the expectations and experiences of the pregnant women, spouses/partners, health workers and stakeholders of the consent process during a Group B Streptococcus maternal vaccine trial. METHODS: We interviewed 56 participants including pregnant women taking part in the trial, women not in the trial, health workers handling the trial procedures, spouses, and community stakeholders. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 23 women in the trial, in-depth interviews with 5 spouses, and 5 women not in the trial, key informant interviews with 5 health workers and 5 other stakeholders were undertaken. RESULTS: Decision-making by a pregnant woman to join a trial was done in consultation with spouse, parents, siblings, or trusted health workers. Written study information was appreciated by all but they suggested the use of audio and visual presentation to enhance understanding. Women stressed the need to ensure that their male partners received study information before their pregnant partners joined a clinical trial. Confidentiality in research was emphasised differently by individual participants; while some emphasised it for self, others were keen to protect their family members from being exposed, for allowing them to be involved in research. However, others wanted their community participation to be acknowledged. CONCLUSION: We found that pregnant women make decisions to join a clinical trial after consulting with close family. Our findings suggest the need for an information strategy which informs not only the pregnant woman, but also her family about the research she is invited to engage in.

Determining capacity of people with dementia to take part in research: an electronic survey study of researcher confidence, competence and training needs.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are required to determine whether a person has capacity to consent to a research study before they are able to participate. The Mental Capacity Act and accompanying Code of Practice for England and Wales provide some guidance on this process, but researchers have identified that it can be difficult to determine capacity to consent when a person has complex cognitive or communication needs. This study aimed to understand the experiences and opinions of researchers who recruit people with dementia to research projects, to inform the future development of training resources. METHODS: A mixed method, cross-sectional, electronic survey was circulated via social media and research networks in England and Wales. The survey remained open for ten weeks and included open and closed questions exploring respondents' confidence in determining capacity in the context of recruiting people with dementia to consent, their views on training and support they have experienced and their suggestions for future training and support needs. RESULTS: 60 respondents completed the survey from across England and Wales. Although 75% of respondents had experience of determining capacity to consent with people with dementia to research, only 13% rated themselves as feeling 'very confident' in this. Qualitative content analysis of open responses led to the generation of six themes, explaining researchers' confidence, competence and future training needs in this area: (1) Researcher uncertainties, (2) Lack of time, (3) Balancing information complexity with accessibility, (4) Gatekeepers, (5) Existing enablers and (6) Envisioning future training. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers would benefit from specific training in undertaking conversations around consent with people with dementia. People with dementia may have fluctuating capacity, and despite support from caregivers, researchers have little practical guidance on methods of determining a person's ability to understand or appreciate the information they have provided during the consent process. Given the development of large complex trials within dementia research, there is an urgency to develop specific and practical guidance and training for researchers working with people with dementia and their families.

Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership.

OBJECTIVE: Research cannot advance without the voluntary participation of human participants. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: Full participation of research participants is often restrained by the traditional research framework, which relegates them to a predefined participant role and allows them only quasi-scripted opportunities to contribute to research processes and outcomes. Terms commonly used to refer to research participants do not reflect their significant role or send a clear message about their value. The authors propose a shift from 'patient participant' to 'participant partner.' Recognition of the true partnership between the participant and the research team, from the consent process to the trial's end, will encourage and enable fuller participation. CONCLUSION: Changing the rhetoric of research in the labelling of research participants will require dialogue. 'Respect for persons' demands it, and the research process will be better for it.

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion. RESULTS: We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results). CONCLUSION: Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

"There's not enough studies": Views of black breast and ovarian cancer patients on research participation.

BACKGROUND: Black breast and ovarian cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical cancer trials disproportionate to the prevalence of these cancers in Black females. Historically, lower enrollment has been attributed to individualized factors, including medical mistrust, but more recently structural factors, including systemic racism, have received additional scrutiny. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and ovarian cancer to understand their views and experiences related to research participation. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted via telephone or video conference and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes related to the offer and participation in cancer clinical trials and research studies, impact on cancer care, and recommendations to increase enrollment of Black patients. RESULTS: Sixty-one Black women completed an interview. Participants expressed that Black women are underrepresented in cancer research, and that this negatively impacted their own care. Many cited past historical abuses, including the Tuskegee syphilis trial, as a potential factor for lower enrollment but suggested that lower enrollment was better understood in the context of the entirety of their healthcare experiences, including present-day examples of patient mistreatment or dismissal. Participants suggested that proactive community engagement, transparency, and increased representation of Black research team members were strategies likely to foster trust and bolster research participation. CONCLUSION(S): Medical mistrust is only a partial factor in the lower participation of Black patients in cancer research. Researchers should implement the strategies identified by our participants to promote diverse enrollment and ensure that Black patients are included in future therapeutic advances.

Willingness of Women with Endometriosis Planning to Undergo IVF to Participate in a Randomized Clinical Trial and the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Potential Participation.

The Pre-IVF Treatment with a GnRH Antagonist in Women with Endometriosis (PREGnant) Trial (clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT04173169) was designed to test the hypothesis that 60-day pre-treatment with an oral GnRH antagonist in women with documented endometriosis and planning an IVF cycle will result in a superior live birth rate to placebo. Eight hundred fourteen women are required from 4 national sites. To determine the feasibility of using an electronic medical record (EMR)-based strategy to recruit 204 participants at the Colorado site, we conducted a survey of women within the UCHealth system. Eligible women, identified using relevant ICD-10 codes, were invited to complete a 6-question survey to assess planned utilization of IVF, potential interest in participation, and whether delays in treatment due to COVID-19 would influence their decision to participate. Of 6354 age-eligible women with an endometriosis diagnosis, 421 had a concurrent infertility diagnosis. After eliminating duplicates, 212 were emailed a survey; 76 (36%) responded, 6 of whom reported no endometriosis diagnosis. Of the remaining 70, 29 (41%) were planning fertility treatment; only 19 planned IVF. All 19 expressed interest in participation. COVID-19 delays in treatment were not considered as a factor affecting participation by 8/19; the remaining 11 felt that it would "somewhat" affect their decision. None reported that they would not consider participation because of COVID-19. EMR-based recruitment for an endometriosis clinical trial is feasible although the overall yield of participants is low. Delays in treatment due to COVID-19 did not appear to overly influence potential recruitment.

Del discurso capitalista al neoliberalismo: apuntes sobre la producción del sujeto / From capitalist discourse to neoliberalism: notes on the production of the subject

Las economías globalizadas de mercado conllevan consecuencias de inequidad social basadas en la privatización de sectores laborales y productivos donde los sujetos se involucran en modos singulares de concebirse y construir la realidad. Propone el psicoanálisis lacaniano que el discurso capitalista deshace el lazo social, al obrar con una lógica que consiste en gozar del consumo que supone felicidad. El neoliberalismo promueve un sistema aparentemente horizontal que incorpora las capacidades empoderadas del sujeto promoviéndolo a ser emprendedor y, por tanto, convirtiendo a cada uno en gestor de su propio bienestar pero impedidos para forjar lazos solidarios. No porque el sujeto pueda consumir más, queda desprovisto de su falta constitutiva; paradójicamente, la subjetividad neoliberal reproduce incesantemente un vacío que socava el reconocimiento de las diferencias del otro

Globalized market economies entail consequences of social inequality, based on the privatization of labor and productive sectors, where subjects engage in unique ways of conceiving and constructing reality. Lacanian psychoanalysis proposes that capitalist discourse undoes the social bond, by acting with a logic that consists in enjoying the consumption that supposes happiness. Neoliberalism promotes an apparently horizontal system that incorporates the empowered capacities of the subject by promoting him to be an entrepreneur and, therefore, turning each one into a manager of his own well-being, but prevented from forging solidarity ties. Not because the subject can consume more, he is devoid of his constitutive lack; paradoxically, neoliberal subjectivity incessantly reproduces a vacuum that undermines the recognition of each other's differences.

Research Involving Participants With Impaired Consent Capacity: An Examination of Methods to Determine Capacity to Consent.

OBJECTIVE: To examine methods of assessing consent capacity in research protocols involving participants with impaired consent capacity, and examine instruments used to evaluate research consent capacity. METHODS: A retrospective review of 330 active research protocols involving participants lacking capacity to consent over a 10-year period (January 1, 2009, through March 1, 2019) was conducted to collect protocol characteristics (medical specialty, level of risk and type of study, consent and assent procedures, and type of vulnerable or protected population). Methods to assess consent capacity are described, and instruments to assess consent capacity are summarized. RESULTS: The specialties most frequently involving participants with impaired consent capacity in research were Neurology (27.3%), Critical Care (16.7%), and Surgery (10%). Type of studies are observational (43.9%), clinical trials (33%), chart review (11.5%), biobank (6.1%), and biomarker (5.5%). Minimal risk (53.3%) outnumbered greater than minimal risk (46.7%) studies. Most obtained written informed consent (77%) and assent (40.9%). The most common method to assess consent capacity was direct assessment by investigators (32.7%). Only 86 (26%) studies used instruments to assess consent capacity. Of the 13 instruments used, the most common was the Evaluation of Decision-Making Capacity for Consent to Act as a Research Subject, and is the only instrument that assesses all four components of decisional capacity: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and choice. CONCLUSION: Generally, there was lack of uniformity in determining capacity to consent to research participation. Very few studies used instruments to assess consent capacity. Institutional review boards can provide greater guidance for research consent capacity determination.

Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States.

Importance: Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist. Objective: To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires. Exposures: Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models. Results: The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

Effectiveness and Ethics of Incentives for Research Participation: 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Incentivizing research participation is controversial and variably regulated because of uncertainty regarding whether financial incentives serve as undue inducements by diminishing peoples' sensitivity to research risks or unjust inducements by preferentially increasing enrollment among underserved individuals. Objective: To determine whether incentives improve enrollment in real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or serve as undue or unjust inducements. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two RCTs of incentives that were embedded in 2 parent RCTs, 1 comparing smoking cessation interventions (conducted at smoking cessation clinics in 2 health systems) and 1 evaluating an ambulation intervention (conducted across wards of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) included all persons eligible for the parent trials who did not have prior knowledge of the incentives trials. Recruitment occurred from September 2017 to August 2019 for the smoking trial and January 2018 through May 2019 for the ambulation trial; data were analyzed from January 2020 to July 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to incentives of $0, $200, or $500 for participating in the smoking cessation trial and $0, $100, or $300 for the ambulation trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of each incentive trial was the proportion of people assigned to each recruitment strategy that consented to participate. Each trial was powered to test the hypotheses that incentives served neither as undue inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and perceived research risk, as measured using a 10-point scale, on the primary outcome), nor unjust inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and participants' self-reported income). Noninferiority methods were used to test whether the data were compatible with these 2 effects of incentives and superiority methods to compare the primary and other secondary outcomes. Results: There were a total of 654 participants (327 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.1] years; 394 Black/African American [60.2%], 214 White [32.7%], and 24 multiracial individuals [3.7%]) in the smoking trial, and 642 participants (364 women [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.6] years; 224 Black/African American [34.9%], 335 White [52.2%], and 5 multiracial individuals [0.8%]) in the ambulation trial. Incentives significantly increased consent rates among those in the smoking trial in 47 of 216 (21.8%), 78 of 217 (35.9%), and 104 of 221 (47.1%) in the $0, $200, and $500 groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each increase in incentive, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17; P < .001). Incentives did not increase consent among those in the ambulation trial: 98 of 216 (45.4%), 102 of 212 (48.1%), and 92 of 214 (43.0%) in the $0, $100, and $300 groups, respectively (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22; P = .45). In neither trial was there evidence of undue or unjust inducement (upper confidence limits of ORs for undue inducement, 1.15 and 0.99; P < .001 showing noninferiority; upper confidence limits of ORs for unjust inducement, 1.21 and 1.26; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). There were no significant effects of incentive size on the secondary outcomes in either trial, including time spent reviewing the risk sections of consent forms, perceived research risks, trial understanding, perceived coercion, or therapeutic misconceptions. Conclusions and Relevance: In these 2 randomized clinical trials, financial incentives increased trial enrollment in 1 of 2 trials and did not produce undue or unjust inducement or other unintended consequences in either trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697799.

Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on the willingness of older adults to participate in physiology research: views from past and potential volunteers.

We explored the views of older (≥65 years) past and potential volunteers in regard to participating in physiology research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using an online questionnaire and focus groups, we found that past volunteers (n = 55) were more likely to take part in both acute (p < 0.05) and chronic (p < 0.05) physiology studies, compared with potential future volunteers (n = 57). Both cohorts demonstrated a positive attitude towards volunteering during the COVID-19 pandemic, although concern was evident. Novelty: Volunteers demonstrated a positive attitude and also concern towards participating in physiology research during COVID-19.

O próximo e o ódio: questões da psicanálise na atualidade / The neighbour and the hatred: Our time psychoanalysis' issues / El prójimo y el odio: cuestiones de psicoanálisis en la actualidad

Na contemporaneidade, acirram-se os efeitos estruturais do mal-estar da civilização discutidos por Freud. Nos deteremos naquele que advém da relação com o próximo. Quando a pulsão de morte reproduz uma forma de insatisfação reiterada, o tratamento desse excesso pode recair sobre o corpo do outro que guarda uma diferença de gozo. A maneira como o gozo íntimo ganha forma de estrangeiro habitando, como o pior, o próximo, configura uma suposição de suspeita que sustenta um modo de laço social. Lacan chega a falar que, na matriz de toda fraternidade, está a segregação. Formamos comunidades de gozo e excluímos toda a forma diferente de satisfação que nos ameace. Na atualidade, com o acúmulo do capital, aliado aos efeitos do avanço científico, algo se modificou no laço social e produziu, dessa matriz, uma nova gramática de inimigo, que denominamos sujeito suposto suspeito como um dos nomes do pior. Contra essa lógica, a emancipação e as saídas possíveis que a psicanálise aponta para uma vida em-comum, na solidão da responsabilidade do gozo de cada um, dizem respeito às soluções éticas que enfrentam, desde dentro, todo o idealismo superegóico.

In contemporary times, the structural effects discussed by Freud in the malaise of civilization are intensified. We will dwell on what comes from the relationship with the neighbor. When the death drive reproduces a form of repeated dissatisfaction, the treatment for this excess can fall on the body of the other who has a different satisfaction. The way intimate satisfaction takes shape as a foreigner inhabiting, like the worst, the neighbor, determines an assumption of suspicion that supports a mode of social bonding. Lacan even says that segregation is in the matrix of all fraternity. We create communities of satisfaction and exclude any different form of enjoyment that threatens us. Currently, the accumulation of capital mixed with the effects of scientific advancement brought changes to social bonding and produced, from this matrix, a new grammar for what's enemy. Suspected subject is a naming for the worse. Against this logic, the emancipation and the possible solutions that psychoanalysis suggests for a life in common, in the solitude and responsibility of each one's satisfaction, concerns the ethical solutions that face, from within, all the superegoic idealism.

En los tiempos contemporáneos, los efectos estructurales del malestar de la civilización discutidos por Freud se intensifican. Nos detendremos en el que proviene de la relación con los demás. Cuando el pulsion de la muerte reproduce una forma de insatisfacción repetida, el tratamiento de este exceso puede recaer en el cuerpo del otro, que tiene una diferencia de goce. El goce íntimo es proyectado como extranjero habitando en el prójimo, como si encarnara lo peor que proyectaba sobre él, configura una presunción de sospecha que sustenta un modo de vínculo social. Lacan llega al extremo de decir que la segregación está en el corazón de cada fraternidad. Formamos comunidades de goce y excluimos cualquier forma diferente de satisfacción que nos amenace. Hoy en día, con la acumulación de capital, combinada con los efectos del avance científico, algo ha cambiado en el vínculo social y ha producido, a partir de esta matriz, una nueva gramática del enemigo, que llamamos el sujeto supuesto sospechoso como uno de los nombres de lo peor. Contra esta lógica, la emancipación y las posibles soluciones que apunta el psicoanálisis en una vida común, en la soledad de la responsabilidad del goce de cada uno, conciernen a las soluciones éticas que enfrentan, desde adentro, todo idealismo superegoico.

Taming Time: Configuring Cancer Patients as Research Subjects.

This article explores how incurable cancer patients in the affluent Danish welfare state are recruited to clinical trials. We show that patients' impending death constitutes their potential for being configured as research subjects. To produce valuable data, patients who enroll in trials and health care professionals must engage in daily "time practices" that prolong the threshold between life and death. When death becomes inevitable, the limit of configuring dying cancer patients as research subjects is reached. Navigating this temporal logic, health care professionals balance the boundary between patients' instrumental worth as research subjects and their intrinsic worth as dying cancer patients. Whereas previous studies have critically uncovered how clinical trials operate at socioeconomic margins, we point to the ways in which clinical trials operate through temporal margins. We argue that clinical trials are dependent on configuring marginal societal spaces and marginal bodies from which to produce knowledge.

Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

There has been little discussion of the way genomic research results should be returned and how to obtain informed consent for this. We systematically searched the empirical literature, identifying 63 articles exploring stakeholder perspectives on processes for obtaining informed consent about return of results and/or result delivery. Participants, patients and members of the public generally felt they should choose which results are returned to them and how, ranging from direct (face-to-face, telephone) to indirect (letters, emails, web-based delivery) communication. Professionals identified inadequacies in result delivery processes in the research context. Our findings have important implications for ensuring participants are supported in deciding which results they wish to receive or, if no choice is offered, preparing them for potential research outcomes.

Unblinding in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Research Ethics Case.

A pregnant woman was enrolled in a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which participants were randomized to a placebo or a drug being tested to prevent a hypertensive complication. After completing the trial, the research participant insisted on being told which drug she received to prepare for a future pregnancy. This case highlights an element of RCT procedure that has received minimal attention-whether to unblind study participants at the end of their participation. Given that unblinding is not standard practice for nonserious adverse events, what actions are justifiable for the investigators to take? To synthesize the information about this case, we used the CASES model, created by the National Center for Ethics in Health Care to analyze ethics cases. Ethical principles that guide research emphasize communication with participants and the importance of reducing harm within the constraints of the scientific goals. Participants may value knowing which drug they received for future health care decision-making. We review information about the benefits and harms of unblinding.

Real-time dialogue between experimenters and dreamers during REM sleep.

Dreams take us to a different reality, a hallucinatory world that feels as real as any waking experience. These often-bizarre episodes are emblematic of human sleep but have yet to be adequately explained. Retrospective dream reports are subject to distortion and forgetting, presenting a fundamental challenge for neuroscientific studies of dreaming. Here we show that individuals who are asleep and in the midst of a lucid dream (aware of the fact that they are currently dreaming) can perceive questions from an experimenter and provide answers using electrophysiological signals. We implemented our procedures for two-way communication during polysomnographically verified rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep in 36 individuals. Some had minimal prior experience with lucid dreaming, others were frequent lucid dreamers, and one was a patient with narcolepsy who had frequent lucid dreams. During REM sleep, these individuals exhibited various capabilities, including performing veridical perceptual analysis of novel information, maintaining information in working memory, computing simple answers, and expressing volitional replies. Their responses included distinctive eye movements and selective facial muscle contractions, constituting correctly answered questions on 29 occasions across 6 of the individuals tested. These repeated observations of interactive dreaming, documented by four independent laboratory groups, demonstrate that phenomenological and cognitive characteristics of dreaming can be interrogated in real time. This relatively unexplored communication channel can enable a variety of practical applications and a new strategy for the empirical exploration of dreams.