Expectations of Benefit in Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Implications for Assessing the Adequacy of Informed Consent

Kevin P. Weinfurt, Damon M. Seils, Janice P. Tzeng, Kate L. Compton, Daniel P. Sulmasy, Alan B. Astrow, Nicholas A. Solarino, Kevin A. Schulman and Neal J. Meropol
Additional contact information
Kevin P. Weinfurt: Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu, Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
Damon M. Seils: Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute
Janice P. Tzeng: Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute
Kate L. Compton: Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute
Daniel P. Sulmasy: The John J. Conley Department of Ethics, St. Vincents Manhattan, New York, New York, Bioethics Institute of New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York
Alan B. Astrow: Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
Nicholas A. Solarino: Divisions of Medical Science and Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Kevin A. Schulman: Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
Neal J. Meropol: Divisions of Medical Science and Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Medical Decision Making, 2008, vol. 28, issue 4, 575-581

Abstract: Background. Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented, which is based on assumptions about what patients mean when responding to questions about likelihood of benefit. Methods. Participants were 27 women and 18 men in early-phase oncology trials at 2 academic medical centers in the United States. To determine whether expectations of benefit differ depending on how patients are queried, the authors randomly assigned participants to 1 of 3 interviews corresponding to 3 questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency type, belief type, and vague. In semistructured interviews, participants were queried about how they understood and answered the question. Participants then answered and discussed 1 of the other questions. Results. Expectations of benefit in response to the belief-type question were significantly greater than expectations in response to the frequency-type and vague questions ( P=0:02 ). The most common justifications involved positive attitude ( n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health ( n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with higher ( > 70%) expectations ( n = 11 [85%]) and least common among those with lower (

Keywords: clinical trials; phase 1; clinical trials; phase 2; communication; comprehension; decision making; informed consent. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08315242 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:575-581

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315242

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().