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
. 2023 Sep 21;24(1):73.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00954-5.

Patient priorities for fulfilling the principle of respect in research: findings from a modified Delphi study

Stephanie A Kraft  1   2 , Devan M Duenas  3 , Seema K Shah  4   5
Affiliations

Patient priorities for fulfilling the principle of respect in research: findings from a modified Delphi study

Stephanie A Kraft et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: Standard interpretations of the ethical principle of respect for persons have not incorporated the views and values of patients, especially patients from groups underrepresented in research. This limits the ability of research ethics scholarship, guidance, and oversight to support inclusive, patient-centered research. This study aimed to identify the practical approaches that patients in community-based settings value most for conveying respect in genomics research.

Methods: We conducted a 3-round, web-based survey using the modified Delphi technique to identify areas of agreement among English-speaking patients at primary care clinics in Washington State and Idaho who had a personal or family history of cancer. In Round 1, respondents rated the importance of 17 items, identified in prior qualitative work, for feeling respected. In Round 2, respondents re-rated each item after reviewing overall group ratings. In Round 3, respondents ranked a subset of the 8 most highly rated items. We calculated each item's mean and median rankings in Round 3 to identify which approaches were most important for feeling respected in research.

Results: Forty-one patients consented to the survey, 21 (51%) completed Round 1, and 18 (86% of Round 1) completed each of Rounds 2 and 3. Two sets of rankings were excluded from analysis as speed of response suggested they had not completed the Round 3 ranking task. Respondents prioritized provision of study information to support decision-making (mean ranking 2.6 out of 8; median ranking 1.5) and interactions with research staff characterized by kindness, patience, and a lack of judgment (mean ranking 2.8; median ranking 2) as the most important approaches for conveying respect.

Conclusions: Informed consent and interpersonal interactions are key ways that research participants experience respect. These can be supported by other approaches to respecting participants, especially when consent and/or direct interactions are infeasible. Future work should continue to engage with patients in community-based settings to identify best practices for research without consent and examine unique perspectives across clinical and demographic groups in different types of research.

Keywords: Participant perspectives; Research ethics; Respect for persons; Trustworthiness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Recruitment flow chart
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Popejoy AB, Fullerton SM. Genomics is failing on diversity. Nature. 2016;538(7624):161–164. doi: 10.1038/538161a. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Peterson RE, Kuchenbaecker K, Walters RK, Chen CY, Popejoy AB, Periyasamy S, et al. Genome-wide association studies in ancestrally diverse populations: opportunities, methods, pitfalls, and recommendations. Cell. 2019;179(3):589–603. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.051. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sirugo G, Williams SM, Tishkoff SA. The missing diversity in human genetic studies. Cell. 2019;177(1):26–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.048. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Knowledge of the Tuskegee study and its impact on the willingness to participate in medical research studies. J Natl Med Assoc. 2000;92(12):563–572. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Katz RV, Green BL, Kressin NR, Kegeles SS, Wang MQ, James SA, et al. The Legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Assessing its Impact on Willingness to Participate in Biomedical Studies. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008;19(4):1168–80. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0067. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources