Research is increasingly recognised as a key component of medical curricula, offering a range of benefits including development of skills in evidence-based medicine. The literature indicates that experienced academic supervision or mentoring is important in any research activity and positively influences research output. The aim of this project was to investigate the human research ethics experiences and knowledge of three groups: medical students, and university academic staff and clinicians eligible to supervise medical student research projects; at two Australian universities. Training (...) in research ethics was low amongst academic staff and clinicians eligible to supervise medical student research. Only two-thirds of academic staff and students and less than half of clinicians surveyed indicated that specific patient consent was required for a doctor to include patient medical records within a research publication. There was limited awareness of requirements for participant information and consent forms amongst all groups. In the case of clinical trials, fewer clinicians and students than academics indicated there was a requirement to obtain consent. Awareness of the ethics committee focus on respect was low across all groups. This project has identified significant gaps in human research ethics understanding among medical students, and university academic staff and clinicians. The incorporation of research within medical curricula provides the impetus for medical schools and their institutions to ensure that academic staff and clinicians who are eligible and qualified to supervise students’ research projects are appropriately trained in human research ethics. (shrink)

The ramifications of including genetic components in the clinical studies conducted in non-academic settings create unique ethical challenges. We used a qualitative research design consisting of semi-structured interviews that took place between October 2010 and September 2012. The sample consisted of 80 participants − 38 physicians and 42 coordinators − who worked across a number of different settings, including clinics, private practices, small hospitals, free standing research centers, and blended hospital-institutes in both rural and urban communities in 13 states across (...) the United States. The respondents primarily conducted industry sponsored trials and recruited their own patients as research participants. A majority of the respondents (65%) reported that most of the studies they conducted included an additional genetics component, and so participants were asked to donate specimens for genomics or biobanking. While genomics association studies were perceived as being of benefit, awareness of ethical implications associated with such studies was limited. The rapid advances in genetic technologies make it hard for clinicians and coordinators to help patients make informed decisions about participating in clinical research, and underscore the need to ensure that the regulations governing research on human subjects keep pace with the social and technological changes. It seems essential to discern legitimate ethical concerns and find ways to convey what is going on, what is possible and what might not be possible in terms of protecting privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality. (shrink)

Over the past 20 years, clinical research has migrated from academic medical centers to community-based settings, including rural settings. This evolving research environment may present some moral hazards or challenges that could undermine traditionally accepted standards for the protection of human subjects. The study described in this article was designed to explore the influence of motives driving the decisions to conduct clinical trial research in rural community settings. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 80 participants who conducted clinical trials with (...) rural subjects. The interviews provided a way to examine the influence of budgetary factors when deciding to conduct a clinical study, how information about the budget and the purpose of the study is conveyed to research participants, and the potential willingness of clinicians and coordinators to enroll in the kinds of studies they offer. The findings suggest that clinical trial research in rural communities may challenge clinicians’ abilities to balance the needs of the patient with the needs of the research enterprise. Few respondents seemed to recognize the traditionally recognized hazards of a dual relationship, specifically the moral risks of trying to attend to the interests of both patient and industry. It seems important to re-examine how we protect human subjects and what such protection should look like as research becomes part of the way medical care is provided, even in very rural areas. (shrink)