In clinical research – whether pharmaceutical, genetic or biomarker research – it is important to protect research participants’ autonomy and to ensure or strengthen their control over health-related decisions. Empirical–ethical studies have argued that both the ethical concept and the current legalistic practice of informed consent should be adapted to the complexity of the clinical environment. For this, a better understanding of recruitment, for which also the physician–patient relationship plays an important role, is needed.
Our aim is to ethically reflect communication processes by identifying patterns used by physicians to motivate patients’ participation in clinical research and to assess whether patients also use these patterns in formulating their own research motivation. We conducted a secondary analysis with empirical data from a research project involving physicians and patients in a clinical research setting of a biomarker study for rectal cancer treatment. Our empirical data included observations of physician–patient consultations (n = 54) and semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 40). Overall, we collected 93 interviews.
We found two dominant communication patterns, which physicians applied for motivating patients to take part in this research study. Some forms of these patterns tend to mislead patients’ understanding, while others could justifiably be applied in this consultation setting without undermining patients’ autonomy. This insight that the physician–patient communication has a strong influence on patients increases the importance to strengthen physicians’ ethically acceptable communication patterns regarding research participation.
We further suggest that there is a need for a critical reflection of the ethics committee’s requirements for information regarding research participation.
SolbakkJHVidalSM.Research ethics, clinical. In: RChadwick (ed) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. 2nd ed.
San Diego:
Academic Press, 2012, pp. 775–785.
2.
EmanuelEJWendlerDGradyC.What makes clinical research ethical?JAMA2000;
283: 2701–2711.
3.
FadenRRBeauchampTL.The concept of informed consent. In: TLBeauchampLWaltersJFKahnet al. (eds) Contemporary Issues in Bioethics.
Belmont:
Wadsworth, 1994, pp. 148–152.
4.
KassNEFadenRRGoodmanSNet al.
The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hasting Cent Rep2013;
43: 4–15.
5.
JoffeSMillerFG.Bench to bedside: mapping the moral terrain of clinical research. Hastings Cent Rep2008;
38: 30–42.
6.
Budin-LjøsneITeareHJAKayeJet al.
Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics2017;
18: 10.
7.
MuthuswamyV.Ethical issues in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res2013;
4: 9–13.
8.
BrownRFButowPNButtDGet al.
Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials. Soc Sci Med2004;
58: 379–390.
9.
GradyCEcksteinLBerkmanBet al.
Broad consent for research with biological samples: workshop conclusions. Am J Bioeth2015;
15: 34–42.
10.
KayeJWhitleyEALundDet al.
Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twentyfirst century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet2014;
23: 141–146.
11.
WendlerD.Broad versus blanket consent for research with human biological samples. Hastings Cent Rep2013;
43: 3–4.
12.
PerryJWöhlkeSHeßlingACet al.
Why take part in personalised cancer research? Patients’ genetic misconception, genetic responsibility and incomprehension of stratification – an empirical-ethical examination. Eur J Cancer Care2016; 26: 1–12.
13.
DohertyCStavropoulouCSaundersMNKet al.
The consent process: enabling or disabling patients’ active participation. Health2015; 21(2): 1–18.
14.
FeltUBisterMDStrassnigMet al.
Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health2009;
13: 87–106.
15.
HallDEHanusaBHFineMJet al.
Do surgeons and patients discuss what they document on consent forms?J Surg Educ2015;
197: 66–77.
16.
HallDEProchazkaAVFinkAS.Informed consent for clinical treatment. CMAJ2012;
184: 533–540.
17.
RaoS.Informed consent: an ethical obligation or legal compulsion?.J Cutan Aesthet Surg2008;
1: 33–35.
18.
MillerTBoultonM.Changing constructions of informed consent: qualitative research and complex social worlds. Soc Sci Med2007;
65: 2199–2211.
19.
GrossmanSAPiantadosiSCovaheyC.Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?J Clin Oncol1994;
12: 2211–2215.
20.
PluutB.Differences that matter: developing critical insights into discourses of patient-centeredness. Med Health Care Philos2016;
19: 501–515.
21.
LevitLBaloghENassSet al. Patient-centered communication and shared decision making. In: LLevitEBaloghSNasset al. (eds) Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis.
Washington, DC:
National Academic Press, 2013, pp. 91–153.
22.
HashimMJ.Patient-centered communication: basic skills. Am Fam Phys2017;
95: 29–34.
23.
NakashimaMKurokiSShinkodaHet al.
Information-seeking experiences and decision-making roles of Japanese women with breast cancer. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi2012;
103: 120–130.
24.
WhitneySNHolmes-RovnerMBrodyHet al.
Beyond shared decision making: an expanded typology of medical decisions. Med Decis Making2008;
28: 699–705.
25.
BrueraEWilleyJPalmerJLet al.
Treatment decisions for breast carcinoma: patient preferences and physician perceptions. Cancer2002;
94: 2076–2080.
26.
ElwynGDeblendorfCEpsteinRMet al.
Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems. Ann Fam Med2014;
12: 270–275.
27.
ElwynGFroschDLThomsonRet al.
Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med2012;
27: 1361–1367.
28.
BarryMJEdgman-LevitanS.Shared decision making: the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med2012;
366: 780–781.
29.
WalshESheridanA.Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: a narrative review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun2016;
3: 23–31.
30.
ChenDTMillerFGRosensteinDL.Clinical research and the physician-patient relationship. Ann Intern Med2003;
138: 669–672.
31.
EmanuelEJEmanuelLL.Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA1992;
267: 2221–2226.
32.
SalmonP.Argumentation and persuasion in patient-centred communication. Patient Educ Couns2015;
98: 543–544.
33.
RubinelliS.Rational versus unreasonable persuasion in doctor-patient communication: a normative account. Patient Educ Couns2013;
92: 296–301.
34.
CorriganOTuttonR.What’s in a name? Subjects, volunteers, participants and activists in clinical research. Clin Ethics2006;
1: 101–104.
35.
WöhlkeS.Wenn es persönlich wird in der “personalisierten Medizin”: Aufklärung und Kommunikation aus klinischer Forscher- und Patientenperspektive im empirisch-ethischen Vergleich. Ethik Med2013;
25: 215–222.
36.
ErnstmannNWirtzMNitzscheAet al.
Patients’ trust in physician, patient enablement, and health-related quality of life during colon cancer treatment. J Cancer Educ2017; 32(3): 571–579.
37.
PearsonSDRaekeLH.Patients’ trust in physicians: many theories, few measure, and little data. J Gen Intern Med2000;
15: 509–513.
38.
EpsteinRMStreetRL.Jr.The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med2011;
9: 100–103.
39.
ElwynGEdwardsAWensingMet al.
Shared decision making observed in clinical practice: visual displays of communication sequence and patterns. J Eval Clin Pract2001;
7: 211–221.
40.
ElwynGCharlesC.Shared decision-making: from conceptual models to implementation in clinical practice. In: AEdwardsGElwyn (eds) Shared Decision-Making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-Based Patient Choice.
New York:
Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 117–121.
41.
HesslingASchicktanzS.What German experts expect from individualised medicine: problems of uncertainty and future complication in physician-patient-interaction. Clin Ethics2012;
7: 86–93.
42.
EmanuelEJWendlerDGradyC.The ethical framework for biomedical research. In: EJEmanuelCGradyRACrouchet al. (eds) The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 123–135.
43.
BauerTLBougheyJC.Community-based physicians and hospitals need to participate in clinical trials. Bull Am Coll Surg2014;
99: 46–47.
44.
NewingtonLMetcalfeA.Researchers’ and clinicians’ perceptions of recruiting participants to clinical research: a thematic meta-synthesis. J Clin Med Res2014;
6: 162–172.
45.
MinasianLMO’MaraAM.Accrual to clinical trials: let’s look at the physicians. J Natl Cancer Inst2011;
103: 357–358.
46.
KaplanSHBilimekJSorkinDHet al.
Who can respond to treatment? Identifying patient characteristics related to heterogeneity of treatment effects. Med Care2010;
48: 9–16.
47.
BrownRBylundCLSiminoffLAet al.
Seeking informed consent to phase I cancer clinical trials: identifying oncologists’ communication strategies. Psychooncology2011;
20: 361–368.
48.
ArnaoutAKuchukIBouganimNet al.
Can the referring surgeon enhance accrual of breast cancer patients to medical and radiation oncology trials? The ENHANCE study. Curr Oncol2016;
23: e276e9.
49.
Hay-SmithEJBrownMAndersonLet al.
Once a clinician, always a clinician: a systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants. BMC Med Res Methodol2016;
16: 17.
50.
WendlerDJohnsonR.When clinical care is like research: the need for review and consent. Theor Med Bioeth2016;
37: 193–209.
51.
SnowdonCElbourneDGarciaJ.Declining enrolment in a clinical trial and injurious misconceptions: is there a flipside to the therapeutic misconception?Clin Ethics2007;
2: 193–200.
52.
WöhlkeSPerryJSchicktanzS.Taking it personally: patients’ perspectives on personalised medicine and its ethical relevance. In: JVollmannVSandowSWäscheret al. (eds) Personalised Medicine: Ethical, Medical, Economic and Legal Critical Perspectives.
New York: Routledge, 2016, pp 129–149.
53.
MayTZusevicsKLDerseAet al.
The limits of traditional approaches to informed consent for genomic medicine. HEC Forum2014;
26: 185–202.
54.
SolbakkJHVidalSM.Clinical research ethics. In: RChadwick (ed) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, 2nd ed.,
vol.3.
San Diego:
Elsevier Science Publishing, 2012, pp. 775–785.
55.
AlbrechtTLBlanchardCRuckdeschelJCet al.
Strategic physician communication and oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol1999;
17: 3324–3332.
56.
KaplanCPNápolesAMDohanDet al.
Clinical trial discussion, referral, and recruitment: physician, patient, and system factors. Cancer Causes Control2013;
24: 979–988.
57.
BaerARMichaelsMGoodMJet al.
Engaging referring physicians in the clinical trial process. J Oncol Pract2012;
8: e8–e10.
58.
LafataJWunderlichTFlockeSAet al.
Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening. Transl Behav Med2015;
5: 87–93.
59.
SprengerTRotheHJungKet al.
Stage II/III rectal cancer with intermediate response to preoperative radiochemotherapy: do we have indications for individual risk stratification?World J Surg Onc2010;
8: 27.
60.
RödelCLierschTBeckerHet al.
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin versus fluorouracil alone in locally advanced rectal cancer: initial results of the German CAO/ARO/AIO-04 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol2012;
13: 679–687.
61.
GreenJThorogoodN.Qualitative Methods for Health Research. 2nd ed.
London:
Sage, 2011.
62.
MertzMInthornJRenzGet al.
Research across the disciplines: a road map for quality criteria in empirical ethics research. BMC Med Ethics2014;
15: 17. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-15-17.
63.
HolmS.A defense of empirical ethics. In: SHolmMFJonas (eds) Engaging the World: The Use of Empirical Research in Bioethics and the Regulation of Biotechnology.
Amsterdam, Berlin:
IOS Press, 2004, pp. 3–8.
64.
MayringP.Qualitative Content Analysis.
Weinheim:
Beltz Verlag, 2007.
65.
MeyermannAPorzeltM. Hinweise zur Anonymisierung qualitativer Daten. In: forschungsdaten bildung informiert, Nr. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung.
66.
WalshJMEKarlinerLBurkeNet al.
Physicians’ approaches to recommending colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study. J Canc Educ2010;
25: 385–390.
67.
Müller-EngelmannMDonner-BanzhoffNKellerHet al.
When decisions should be shared a study of social norms. Med Decis Making2013;
33: 37–47.
68.
MechanicDMeyerS.Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness. Soc Sci Med2000;
51: 657–668.
69.
EyalN.Using informed consent to save trust. J Med Ethics2012; 40: 437–444.
70.
Arribas-AyllonMSarangiSClarkeA.Managing self-responsibility through other-oriented blame: family accounts of genetic testing. Soc Sci Med2008;
66: 1521–1532.
71.
HallowellNCookeSCrawfordGet al.
Healthcare professionals’ and researchers’ understanding of cancer genetics activities: a qualitative interview study. J Med Ethics2009;
35: 113–119.
72.
PolitiMCStreetRL.Jr.The importance of communication in collaborative decision making: facilitating shared mind and the management of uncertainty. J Eval Clin Pract2011;
17: 579–584.
73.
PardonKDeschepperRVander SticheleRet al.
Are patients’ preferences for information and participation in medical decision-making being met? Interview study with lung cancer patients. Palliat Med2011;
25: 62–70.
74.
van der MolenB.Relating information needs to the cancer experience: 1. Information as a key coping strategy. Eur J Cancer Care1999;
8: 238–244.
