Although the importance of including vulnerable populations in medical research is widely accepted, identifying how to achieve such inclusion remains a challenge. Ensuring that the language of informed consent is comprehensible to this group is no less of a challenge. Although a variety of interventions show promise for increasing the comprehensibility of informed consent and increasing a climate of exchange, consensus is lacking on which interventions should be used in which situations and current regulations provide little guidance. We argue that the notion of individual autonomy — a foundational principle of informed consent — may be too narrow for some vulnerable populations by virtue of its failure to acknowledge their unique histories and current circumstances. It has a different meaning for members of structured groups like American Indians than for unstructured groups, such as African Americans, whose complicated histories foster group identity. Ensuring broad participation in research and selecting appropriate methods for obtaining informed consent — namely, methods aligned with the source of vulnerability and level of risk — require new ways of thinking that might produce guidelines for matching informed consent models and processes with subpopulations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Research Involving Prisoners (1976), available at <https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_research_involving_prisoners.pdf> (last visited January 8, 2018); National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Research Involving Children (1977), available at <https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_research_involving_children.pdf> (last visited January 8, 2018); National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/> (last visited January 8, 2018); National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity (1998), available at <https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/capacity/TOC.htm> (last visited January 8, 2018).
P. M.Massey, “Where Do U.S. Adults Who Do Not Use the Internet Get Health Information? Examining Digital Health Information Disparities from 2008 to 2013,”Journal of Health Communication21, no. 1 (2016): 118-124; R. F. McCloud et al., “Beyond Access: Barriers to Internet Health Information Seeking among the Urban Poor,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23, no. 6 (2016): 1053-1059.
4.
C.Gradyet al., “Informed Consent,”New England Journal of Medicine376, no. 9 (2017): 856-867.
5.
L. D.Hudsonet al., “Are Benefits Conferred with Greater Socioeconomic Position Undermined by Racial Discrimination among African American Men?”Journal of Mens' Health9, no. 2 (2012): 127-136; L. D. Hudson and S. Gehlert, “Considering the Role of Social Determinants of Health in Black-White Breast Cancer Disparities,” in R. Bangs and L. E. Davis, eds., Race and Social Problems: Restructuring Inequality (New York: Springer, 2015): 227-246.
National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2015 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2016), Figure 18, at 22. Data from the National Vital Statistics System.
9.
K. J.Edin and L.Shaefer, $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2015): at xxii.
10.
K.Alcaraz, M. W.Kreuter, and R.Bryan, “Use of GIS to Identify Optimal Settings for Cancer Prevention and Control in African American Communities,”Preventive Medicine49, no. 1 (2009): 54-57.
11.
S. J.Olshanskyet al., “Differences in Life Expectancy Due to Race and Educational Differences Are Widening, and Many May Not Catch Up,”Health Affairs31, no. 8 (2012): 1803-1813.
T. K.Sacks, “Race and Gender Concordance: Strategy to Reduce Healthcare Disparities or Red Herring? Evidence from a Qualitative Study,”Race and Social Problems5, no. 2 (2013): 88-99.
14.
See, e.g., C.Grady, “Money for Research Participation: Does It Jeopardize Informed Consent?”American Journal of Bioethics1, no. 2 (2001): 40-44; M. Kuczewski, “Is Informed Consent Enough? Monetary Incentives for Research Participation and the Integrity of Biomedicine,” American Journal of Bio-ethics 1, no. 2 (2001): 49-51.
15.
J. M.Sears, “Context is Key for Voluntary and Informed Consent,”American Journal of Bioethics5, no. 1 (2005): 47-48, at 47.
16.
F.Luna, “Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability: Layers Not Labels,”International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics2, no. 1 (2009): 121-139.
17.
J.Mozerskyet al., “Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context,”Hastings Center Report47, no. 2 (2017): 41-49.
18.
See id.
19.
M. K.Paasche-Orlow, H. A.Taylor, and F. L.Brancati, “Readability Standards for Informed-Consent Forms as Compared with Actual Readability,”New England Journal of Medicine348, no. 8 (2003): 721-726.
S. S.Ohet al., “Diversity in Clinical and Biomedical Research: A Promise Yet to Be Fulfilled,”PLoS Medicine12, no. 12 (2015): e1001918, doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001918.
23.
National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-43, 107 Stat. 122, 134 (1994) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 289a-2(c) (2015)).
24.
M. S.Chenet al., “Twenty Years Post-NIH Revitalization Act: Enhancing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials (EMPaCT): Laying the Groundwork for Improving Minority Clinical Trial Accrual: Renewing the Case for Enhancing Minority Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials,”Cancer120, no. S7 (2014): 1091-1096.
K.Viswanathet al., “Internet Use, Browsing, and the Urban Poor: Implications for Cancer Control,”Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs no. 47 (2013): 199-205; Y. Ishikawa et al., “Are Socioeconomic Disparities in Health Behavior Mediated by Differential Media Use? Test of the Communication Inequality Theory,” Patient Education & Counseling 99, no. 11 (2016): 1803-1807; R. F. McCloud et al., “Beyond Access: Barriers to Internet Health Information Seeking Among the Urban Poor,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23, no. 6 (2016): 1053-1059.
27.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, “National Broadband Map,” database, available at <https://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/national-broadband-map> (last visited January 8, 2018).
28.
R.Bayer and S.Galea, “Public Health in the Precision-Medicine Era,”New England Journal of Medicine373, no. 6 (2015): 499-501.
29.
See id.
30.
S.Srinivasanet al., “Small Is Essential: Importance of Sub-population Research in Cancer Control,”American Journal of Public Health105, no. S3 (2015): S371-S373.
S. HensleyAlfordet al., “Participation in Genetic Testing Research Varies by Social Group,”Public Health Genomics14, no. 2 (2011): 85-93.
33.
S.Perskyet al., “Effects of Patient-Provider Race Concordance and Smoking Status on Lung Cancer Risk Perception Accuracy among African-Americans,”Annals of Behavioral Medicine45, no. 3 (2013): 308-317.
34.
See Alcaraz, Kreuter, and Bryan, supra note 10.
35.
See, e.g., B.L.Kaiser, G.R.Thomas, and B.J.Bowers, “A Case Study of Engaging Hard-to-Reach Participants in the Research Process: Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategies (CARDS),”Research in Nursing & Health40, no. 1 (2017): 70-79; E. D. Paskett et al., “Recruitment of Minority and Underserved Populations in the United States: The Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities Experience,” Contemporary Clinical Trials 29, no. 6 (2008): 847-861; A. K. Yancey, A. N. Ortega, and S. K. Kumanyika, “Effective Recruitment and Retention of Minority Research Participants,” Annual Review of Public Health 27 (2006): 1-28.
36.
A.K.Manraiet al., “Genetic Misdiagnosis and the Potential for Health Disparities,”New England Journal of Medicine375, no. 7 (2016): 655-665.
37.
N.Mancusoet al., “The Contribution of Rare Variation to Prostate Cancer Heritability,”Nature Genetics48, no. 1 (2016): 30-35.
38.
A. W.Kurian, “BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations across Race and Ethnicity: Distribution and Clinical Implications,”Current Opinions in Obstetrics & Gynecology22, no. 1 (2010): 72-78.
39.
E. M.Johnet al., “Prevalence of Pathogenic BRCA1 Mutation Carriers in 5 US Racial/Ethnic Groups,”JAMA298, no. 24 (2007): 2869-2876.
40.
K. E.Maloneet al., “Prevalence and Predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in a Population-Based Study of Breast Cancer in White and Black American Women Ages 35 to 64 Years,”Cancer Research66, no. 16 (2006): 8297-8308.
41.
R. A.Kittleset al., “Race, Skin Color and Genetic Ancestry: Implications for Biomedical Research on Health Disparities,”California Journal of Health Promotion5 (2007): 9-23.
42.
R. C.Greenet al., “ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing,”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 7 (2013): 565-574.
43.
See, e.g., W.Burkeet al., “Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need to Talk!”Genetics in Medicine15, no. 11 (2013): 854-859; S. M. Wolf, W. Burke, and B. A. Koenig, “Mapping the Ethics of Translational Genomics: Situating Return of Results and Navigating the Research-Clinical Divide,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 3 (2015): 486-501.
44.
K. J.Johnson and S.Gehlert, “Return of Results from Genomic Sequencing: A Policy Discussion of Secondary Findings for Cancer Predisposition,”Journal of Cancer Policy2, no. 3 (2014): 75-80.
45.
M. J.Hallet al., “BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutations in Women of Different Ethnicities Undergoing Testing for Hereditary Breast-Ovarian Cancer,”Cancer115, no. 10 (2009): 2222-2233.
46.
Board of Directors, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, “ACMG Policy Statement: Updated Recommendations Regarding Analysis and Reporting of Secondary Findings in Clinical Genome-Scale Sequencing,”Genetics in Medicine17, no. 1 (2014): 68-69.
47.
A. W.Kurianet al., “Gaps in Incorporating Germline Genetic Testing into Treatment Decisions-Making for Early-Stage Breast Cancer,”Journal of Clinical Oncology (2017), doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.6480.
48.
T. L.Beauchamp, “Informed Consent: Its History, Meaning, and Present Challenges,”Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics20, no. 4 (2011): 515-523.
49.
See Grady et al., supra note 4.
50.
See Paasche-Orlow, Taylor, and Brancati, supra note 19.
51.
L. M.Beskowet al., “Developing a Simplified Consent Form for Biobanking,”PloS One5, no. 10 (2010): e13302, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013302.
52.
R. F.Ittenbachet al., “Readability and Understanding of Informed Consent among Participants with Low Incomes: A Preliminary Report,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics10, no. 5 (2015): 444-448.
53.
S.Kripalaniet al., “Clinical Research in Low-Literacy Populations: Using Teach-Back to Assess Comprehension of Informed Consent and Privacy Information,”IRB: Ethics & Human Research30, no. 2 (2008): 13-19.
54.
K. L.Dugoshet al., “Measuring Coercion to Participate in Research within a Doubly Vulnerable Population: Initial Development of the Coercion Assessment Scale,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics5, no. 1 (2010): 93-102.
55.
R. L.Sudoreet al., “Use of a Modified Informed Consent Process among Vulnerable Patients: A Descriptive Study,”Journal of General Internal Medicine21, no. 8 (2006): 867-873.
56.
D. B.Rounsavilleet al., “Making Consent More Informed: Preliminary Results from a Multiple-Choice Test Among Probation-Referred Marijuana Users Entering a Randomized Clinical Trial,”Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law36, no. 3 (2008): 354-359.
57.
E. E.Steinke, “Research Ethics, Informed Consent, and Participant Recruitment,”Clinical Nurse Specialist18, no. 2 (2004): 88-97.
58.
W. J.Heerman, R. O.White, and S. L.Barkin, “Advancing Informed Consent for Vulnerable Populations,”Pediatrics135, no. 3 (2015): e562-e564.
59.
See Paasche-Orlow, Taylor, and Brancati, supra note 19.
60.
See Grady et al., supra note 4; J.KayeE. A.Whitley, D.Lund, M.Morrison, H.Teare, K.Melham, “Dynamic Consent: A Patient Interface for Twenty-First Century Research Networks,”European Journal of Human Genetics23, no. 2 (2015): 141-146.
61.
See Grady et al., supra note 4.
62.
See “All of Us,” supra note 2.
63.
See Grady et al., supra note 4.
64.
K.El Emamet al., “A Review of Evidence on Consent Bias in Research,”American Journal of Bioethics13, no. 4 (2013): 42-44; H. F. Lynch, B. E. Bierer, and I. G. Cohen, “Confronting Biospecimen Exceptionalism in Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule,” Hastings Center Report 46, no. 1 (2016): 4-5.
65.
See Grady et al., supra note 4.
66.
J. R.Botkinet al., “Public Attitudes Regarding the Use of Electronic Health Information and Residual Clinical Tissues for Research,”Journal of Community Genetics5, no. 3 (2014): 205-213; C. Grady et al., “Broad Consent for Research with Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions,” American Journal of Bioethics 15, no. 9 (2015): 34-42; C. M. Simon et al., “Active Choice but Not Too Active: Public Perspectives on Biobank Consent Models,” Genetics in Medicine 13, no. 9 (2011): 821-831.
67.
K. M.Brownet al., “Differences in Preferences for Models of Consent for Biobanks between Black and White Women,”Journal of Community Genetics7, no. 1 (2016): 41-49.
68.
D. S.Catzet al., “Attitudes about Genetics in Underserved, Culturally Diverse Populations,”Community Genetics8, no. 3 (2005): 161-172.
69.
K. A.Kaphingstet al., “Effects of Informed Consent for Individual Genome Sequencing on Relevant Knowledge,”Clinical Genetics82, no. 5 (2012): 408-415.
70.
G.Gaskellet al., “Publics and Biobanks: Pan-European Diversity and the Challenge of Responsible Innovation,”European Journal of Human Genetics21, no. 1 (2013): 14-20; K. Hoeyer, “The Role of Privacy and Informed Consent in Danish and Swedish Biobank Practices: Exploring Donor Perspectives,” Medical Law International 10, no. 4 (2010): 269-285; K. Hoeyer and L. F. Hogle, “Informed Consent: The Politics of Intent and Practice in Medical Research Ethics,” Annual Review of Anthropology 43 (2014): 347-362; C. McCarty et al., “Community Consultation and Communication for a Population-Based DNA Biobank: The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project,” American Journal of Medical Genetics A 146A, no. 23 (2008): 3026-3033.
71.
B. A.Koenig, “Have We Asked Too Much of Consent?”Hastings Center Report44, no. 4 (2014): 33-34; B. A. Koenig, “Fixing Research Subjects Protection in the United States: Moving Beyond Consent,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 88, no. 5 (2013): 428-430; K. C. O'Doherty et al., “From Consent to Institutions: Designing Adaptive Governance for Genomic Biobanks,” Social Science & Medicine 73, no. 3 (2011): 367-374.
72.
Koenig, “Have We Asked,” supra note 71.
73.
See O'Doherty, supra note 71.
74.
L. F.Rosset al., “Human Subjects Protections in Community-Engaged Research: A Research Ethics Framework,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics5, no. 1 (2010): 5-18.
75.
See Grady et al., supra note 4.
76.
See supra note 3.
77.
L.Santos, “Genetic Research in Native Communities,”Progress in Community Health Partnerships2, no. 4 (2008): 321-327.
78.
T.Salant and S.Gehlert, “Collective Memory, Candidacy, and Victimisation: Community Epidemiologies of Breast Cancer Risk,”Sociology of Health and Illness30, no. 4 (2008): 599-615.
79.
See Grady et al., supra note 4.
80.
See, e.g., I. K.Komenakaet al., “Participation of Low-Income Women in Genetic Cancer Risk Assessment and BRCA 1/2 Testing: The Experience of a Safety-Net Institution,”Journal of Community Genetics7, no. 3 (2016): 177-183.
81.
See Ross et al., supra note 65; L. F.Rosset al., “The Challenges of Collaboration for Academic and Community Partners in a Research Partnership: Points to Consider,”Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics5, no. 1 (2010): 19-31; L. F. Ross et al., “Nine Key Functions for a Human Subjects Protection Program for Community-Engaged Research: Points to Consider,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5, no. 1 (2010): 33-47.
