Rethinking vulnerable groups in clinical research

Author:

Finnegan M.,O’Donoghue B.

Abstract

Vulnerable groups are often excluded from clinical research on the basis of scientific, ethical and practical reasons. Although intended to protect vulnerable people and maintain study integrity, exclusion of vulnerable groups from research through use of standard exclusion criteria may not always be necessary and may result in findings that are not generalisable. Achieving a balance between the competing needs to protect vulnerable people and to make progress in our understanding of disorders and their management through research requires a reconsideration of exclusion criteria and consent processes to ensure vulnerable people are appropriately represented in clinical research. Reasons for development of broad exclusion criteria include both concrete barriers and intangible discouraging factors. This paper examines this situation and its consequences, perceived and real barriers to inclusion of vulnerable people in research, and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers and applying thoughtful exclusion criteria.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

History and Philosophy of Science,Psychiatry and Mental health,Applied Psychology

Reference80 articles.

1. A review of the impact of exclusion criteria on the generalizability of schizophrenia treatment research

2. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tools for assessing decision-making capacity in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis;Wang;Schizophrenia Research,2016

3. What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?

4. Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand

5. Oireachtas (2015). Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (Ireland), Houses of the Oireachtas, Dublin, 2015. (https://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2015/a6415.pdf). Accessed 11 November 2017.

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Family Conflict in Dementia Caregiving: Maintaining Research Ethics and Integrity;Ethics and Integrity in Research with Older People and Service Users;2023-11-24

2. Helping themselves and helping others: how the passage of time influences why mothers with addictions take part in research;Frontiers in Psychiatry;2023-10-04

3. Equity considerations in clinical practice guidelines for traumatic brain injury and homelessness: a systematic review;eClinicalMedicine;2023-09

4. Sustainable Change;Measuring the Effectiveness of Organizational Development Strategies During Unprecedented Times;2023-06-30

5. ‘I am still valuable’ – A qualitative study of incurable cancer patients coping in hospice care;Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences;2023-02-28

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3