Bioethics Discussion Blog: Clinical Research:Patient-Centered Goals:Set by Who?: The Patients!

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Monday, June 10, 2013

Clinical Research:Patient-Centered Goals:Set by Who?: The Patients!

:




It was very interesting for me to read a Viewpoint article in the June 12 2013
issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It has to do
with medical research and the role of patients in that research. The article is
titled "Patient's Responsibility to Participate in Decision Making and
Research" by Tinetti and Basch. One always thinks that the role of the patient
in medical research should be simply as the "guinea pig" or subject of the
research and that the creation and development of the research project is the
job of the research scientists and physicians. It is these professional folks
who are known to understand the science and the missing information that needs
to be discovered and they are the ones to be involved in deciding upon what and
how and to what ends a medical research study should be designed.

However, on thinking about this a bit further about how medical (also called
clinical) research is to be initiated, one should ask the question as to whose
primary benefit should the research be directed.  One could say that it is to
increase the pool of medical knowledge from which physicians can access in
order to treat all their patients. A more cynical answer would be that the
benefit can be self-serving and really provide a significant benefit to the
professional both in terms of satisfaction of personal inquisitiveness and, of
course, the opportunity to advance one's professional career. The article, on
the other hand, stresses the importance of considering the patients themselves
as the beneficiaries of medical research and as such it should be the patients
themselves who should be involved in setting the basis for a study and involved
in establishing what should be the study's goal. After all, it is the patients
who can provide input into what patients want to get out of the conclusion of
the research. This input could direct the research scientists toward finding
results which would be more acceptable and needed from the patient's point of
view.

Beyond the goal of the study, since the patients are the "guinea-pigs" it would
seem ethical to allow some patient autonomy in the details of the project to
have a say with regard to how they, as subjects, be utilized and more
comfortable with the project. It is important to remember that, in many aspects
of the study, there is a declared responsibility of the patient to strictly
follow the directions set by the researchers and continue their participation
since otherwise the study may be flawed or even lead to its abandonment.

Therefore, patient participation in a study should extend beyond being solely
the subjects to be experimented upon. As the title of the JAMA article suggests
beyond being the subject, shouldn't patients in general be required to
participate in medical research? However, also as the JAMA article implies that
though there is general consensus about the responsibilities of patients to
request information from physicians if they don't understand, participate in
decision about diagnosis and treatment options and agree to adhere to agreed-on
treatment program, "the responsibility of patients to participate in research
is less clear than their responsibility to participate in their own care." One
argument that could be made for patient responsibility would be that "patients
have the duty to participate in research because everyone benefits from the
results and the no one should be a 'free rider'"

Though, ideally, to achieve an effective goal of "patient-centered" healthcare
and decision-making, the JAMA article concludes that to reach that goal
requires that "patients let clinicians know their priorities, understand which
strategies are most likely to achieve their priorities and participate in
research which generates this evidence."

I would be interested to read what my visitors think about the role of patients
to become a study research subject but also contribute to the development of
patient-centered goals for the study.  ..Maurice.


Graphic:  From  www.asbestos.com via Google Images

2 Comments:

At Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1:30:00 PM, Anonymous bioethics student said...

Implied in the article but not stated is the fact that there is patient as individual person, and patient as member of society. Patient as individual would like to get well at almost any cost, and worried will the experimental treatment benefit herself. Patient as member of society is concerned that the research study be well-designed so that it yields unequivocal data at reasonable cost.Which patient is the one in "patient-centered"

 
At Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:41:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Experiments are experiments because the outcome, though suggested by the results of previous experiments, is itself unknown and may not be known until the current experiment is completed, concluded and statistically evaluated. Often the patient "as an individual" and advocating for a person cure may not be fully aware or even aware at all that there is no reliable "cure" for that person nor for any person who desires a "cure" from the experiment. In a clinical experiment, most must start from a state of equipoise. That means that the experimental arm of the study has no better chance of yielding the desired outcome than the control arm. That is why the activity is called an experiment. Therefore, patients entering a clinical trial as individuals should consider themselves merely human subjects of the experiment and set only goals for the experiment that the protocol defines that they be treated humane ways as subjects and not simply objects of the experiment. Their interest therefore as individuals should be in that regard only.

For patients entering as members of society should look to, yes, the costs vs the achievement of the goals of the experiment. For that the patients need to know something of the competency and experience of the investigators and understand the goals of the experiment and their values and then be able to provide the "society" patient's view of what is planned before the experiment is started.

That means that experimental protocol be written to allow an opportunity for project education and the resultant feedback from patients both as individuals and members of society to the formulation of the final project.

This opportunity for patient feedback should be as an essential part of the structure of the research project as the further detailing regarding doses, timing, observational criteria and statistical analysis. Only in this way can "patient-centered goals" be said to have been considered whether as a individual patient or a member of society. ..Maurice.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home