4.7 Article

Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials

Journal

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 239-253

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.05.022

Keywords

USA; clinical trials; informed consent; therapeutic misconception; gene transfer research; benefit

Funding

  1. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [R01HG002087, Z01HG200326] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NHGRI NIH HHS [1R01HG02087] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many subjects in early phase clinical trials expect to benefit in some way from the research intervention. It is understandable that people hope for improvement in their condition, no matter what the evidence. Yet unreasonable expectation of medical benefit may reflect problems with informed consent: Investigators may not disclose clearly that direct medical benefit from an early phase experimental intervention is unlikely or impossible, or subjects may not appreciate the differences between treatment and research. This paper presents findings from recent interviews with researchers and subjects and analysis of consent forms in early phase gene transfer research, a cutting-edge technology often called 'gene therapy. We use three variables to construct a composite measure of therapeutic misconception TM, tapping misconceptions about the purposes of early phase research and the potential for direct medical benefit in these trials. Our multivariate model demonstrates the importance of both subject- and study-level factors as predictors of this TM index: education, disease type, and communication by study personnel about the likelihood of benefit. We hope that this work will deepen the discussion of how to define and measure TM, and refine the specification of factors that are related to subjects' TM. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available