Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus & ISI's SCI  
Users online: 33841  
Home | Subscribe | Feedback | Login 
About Latest Articles Back-Issues Article Submission Resources Sections Etcetera Contact
 
  NAVIGATE Here 
 ::   Next article
 ::   Previous article
 ::   Table of Contents

 RESOURCE Links
 ::   Similar in PUBMED
 ::  Search Pubmed for
 ::  Search in Google Scholar for
 ::Related articles
 ::   Citation Manager
 ::   Access Statistics
 ::   Reader Comments
 ::   Email Alert *
 ::   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1994    
    Printed61    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded29    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


 

 ETHICS FORUM
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 61  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 257-263

An audit of consent refusals in clinical research at a tertiary care center in India


Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College, King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
U M Thatte
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College, King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.166515

Rights and Permissions

Background and Rationale: Ensuring research participants' autonomy is one of the core ethical obligations of researchers. This fundamental principle confers on every participant the right to refuse to take part in clinical research, and the measure of the number of consent refusals could be an important metric to evaluate the quality of the informed consent process. This audit examined consent refusals among Indian participants in clinical studies done at our center. Materials and Methods: The number of consent refusals and their reasons in 10 studies done at our center over a 5-year period were assessed. The studies were classified by the authors according to the type of participant (healthy vs patients), type of sponsor (investigator-initiated vs pharmaceutical industry), type of study (observational vs interventional), level of risk [based on the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) "Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants"], available knowledge of the intervention being studied, and each patient's disease condition. Results: The overall consent refusal rate was 21%. This rate was higher among patient participants [23.8% vs. healthy people (14.9%); P = 0.002], in interventional studies [33.6% vs observational studies (7.5%); P < 0.0001], in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored studies [34.7% vs investigator-initiated studies (7.2%); P < 0.0001], and in studies with greater risk (P < 0.0001). The most common reasons for consent refusals were multiple blood collections (28%), inability to comply with the study protocol (20%), and the risks involved (20%). Conclusion: Our audit suggests the adequacy and reasonable quality of the informed consent process using consent refusals as a metric.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 12th February '04
2004 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine
Official Publication of the Staff Society of the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, India
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow