Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct-Dec;61(4):257-63.
doi: 10.4103/0022-3859.166515.

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

S J Thaker, B H Figer, N J Gogtay, U M Thatte  1
Affiliations

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

S J Thaker et al. J Postgrad Med. 2015 Oct-Dec.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–4. - PubMed
    1. Kuczewski MG, Marshall P. The decision dynamics of clinical research: The context and process of informed consent. Med Care. 2002;40(Suppl):V45–54. - PubMed
    1. Osamor PE, Kass N. Decision-making and motivation to participate in biomedical research in southwest Nigeria. Dev World Bioeth. 2012;12:87–95. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW, Benson P, Winslade W. False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17:20–4. - PubMed
    1. Brock DW. Philosophical justifications of informed consent in research. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady CC, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler DD, editors. The Oxford Text Book of Clinical Research. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 606–11.