Research ethics: An investigation of patients’ motivations for their participation in genetics-related research
Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (1):37-45 (2010)
AbstractDesign: Qualitative interview study. Participants: Fifty-nine patients with a family history of cancer who attend a regional cancer genetics clinic in the UK were interviewed about their current and previous research experiences. Findings: Interviewees gave a range of explanations for research participation. These were categorised as social—research participation benefits the wider society by progressing science and improving treatment for everyone; familial—research participation may improve healthcare and benefit current or future generations of the participant’s family; and personal—research participation provides therapeutic or non-therapeutic benefits for oneself. Conclusions: We discuss the distinction drawn between motives for research participation focused upon self and others, and observe that personal, social and familial motives can be seen as interdependent. For example, research participation that is undertaken to benefit others, particularly relatives, may also offer a number of personal benefits for self, such as enabling participants to feel that they have discharged their social or familial obligations. We argue for the need to move away from simple, static, individualised notions of research participation to a more complex, dynamic and inherently social account.
Similar books and articles
Healthcare professionals' and researchers' understanding of cancer genetics activities: a qualitative interview study.N. Hallowell, S. Cooke, G. Crawford, M. Parker & A. Lucassen - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):113-119.
Recall of participation in research projects in cancer genetics: some implications for research ethics.Sarah Cooke, Gillian Crawford, Michael Parker, Anneke Lucassen & Nina Hallowell - 2008 - Clinical Ethics 3 (4):180-184.
The Risks, Benefits, and Ethics of Trauma-Focused Research Participation.Sarah L. Bunnell & John-Paul Legerski - 2010 - Ethics and Behavior 20 (6):429-442.
Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research?H. M. Evans - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (2):198-203.
On the Limits of Parental Proxy Consent: Children's Right to Non-Participation in Non-Therapeutic Research. [REVIEW]Sonja Grover - 2003 - Journal of Academic Ethics 1 (4):349-383.
‘Risky’ research and participants' interests: the ethics of phase 2C clinical trials.Sarah Chan, Ying-Kiat Zee, Gordon Jayson & John Harris - 2011 - Clinical Ethics 6 (2):91-96.
Can informed consent to research be adapted to risk?Danielle Bromwich & Annette Rid - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):521-528.
Large scale surveys for policy formation and research–a study in inconsistency.Søren Holm & Lisa Bortolotti - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (3):205-220.
Bioethics for Clinicians: 10. Research Ethics.Charles Weijer, Bernard Dickens & Eric M. Meslin - unknown
An intervention to improve cancer patients' understanding of early-phase clinical trials.Nancy E. Kass, Jeremy Sugarman, Amy M. Medley, Linda A. Fogarty, Holly A. Taylor, Christopher K. Daugherty, Mark R. Emerson, Steven N. Goodman, Fay J. Hlubocky & Herbert I. Hurwitz - 2009 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 31 (3):1.
The physician’s role in the protection of human research subjects.John R. Williams - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (1):5-12.
Viewing Research Participation as a Moral Obligation: In Whose Interests?Stuart Rennie - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (2):40.
Children's understanding of the risks and benefits associated with research.T. M. Burke - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (12):715-720.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Public trust and ‘ethics review’ as a commodity: the case of Genomics England Limited and the UK’s 100,000 genomes project. [REVIEW]Gabrielle Natalie Samuel & Bobbie Farsides - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (2):159-168.
Healthcare professionals’ and patients’ perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach.Samuel Gabrielle Natalie, Dheensa Sandi, Farsides Bobbie, Fenwick Angela & Lucassen Anneke - 2017 - BMC Medical Ethics 18 (1):47.
Towards a national genomics medicine service: the challenges facing clinical-research hybrid practices and the case of the 100 000 genomes project. [REVIEW]Sandi Dheensa, Gabrielle Samuel, Anneke M. Lucassen & Bobbie Farsides - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (6):397-403.
Accessing health services through the back door: a qualitative interview study investigating reasons why people participate in health research in Canada. [REVIEW]Anne Townsend & Susan M. Cox - 2013 - BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):40.
A review of ethical frameworks for the disclosure of individual research results in population-based genetic and genomic research. [REVIEW]Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne - 2012 - Research Ethics 8 (1):25-42.
References found in this work
No references found.