Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials
- 19 July 2003
- journal article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Social Science & Medicine
- Vol. 58 (9), 1689-1697
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00338-1
Abstract
Studies repeatedly have shown that clinical research subjects have trouble appreciating the implications for their clinical care of participating in a clinical trial. When this failure is based on a lack of appreciation of the impact on individualized clinical care of elements of the research design, it has been called the “therapeutic misconception”. Failure to distinguish the consequences of research participation from receiving ordinary treatment may seriously undermine the informed consent of research subjects. This article reports results concerning appreciation of the risks of trial participation from intensive interviews with 155 subjects from 40 different clinical trials at two different medical centers in the USA. Working from transcripts of the interviews, every statement of a risk or disadvantage of trial participation was identified and coded into one of 5 different categories. Totally, 23.9% of subjects reported no risks or disadvantages in spite of being explicitly asked about them. Another 2.6% reported only incidental disadvantages such as having to drive a long way to get to the experimental site. In all 14.2% reported only disadvantages associated with the standard treatment (usually side effects). Another 45.8% told the interviewer about disadvantages and risks associated with the experimental intervention (usually side effects). Only 13.5% could report any risks or disadvantages resulting from the research design itself, such as randomization, placebos, double-blind designs and restrictive protocols. The results of this research suggest that subjects often sign consents to participate in clinical trials with only the most modest appreciation of the risks and disadvantages of participation.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Declaration of Helsinki and Clinical Trials: A Focus on Placebo-Controlled Trials in SchizophreniaAmerican Journal of Psychiatry, 2003
- “Why don’t they just tell me straight, why allocate it?” The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trialSocial Science & Medicine, 2002
- Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional surveyThe Lancet, 2001
- Placebo Washout in Trials of Antipsychotic DrugsSchizophrenia Bulletin, 1996
- Of Mice but Not MenNew England Journal of Medicine, 1991
- Issues in planning and interpreting active control equivalence studiesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1989
- Assessing Patients' Capacities to Consent to TreatmentNew England Journal of Medicine, 1988
- Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical ResearchNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987
- The Ethics of the Randomized Clinical TrialNew England Journal of Medicine, 1982
- A New Design for Randomized Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1979