Background Considerable attention has focused on increasing clinical trial participation for members of “underrepresented groups”. However, doing so involves clarifying how to meet the demands of justice, or fairness, which provides the ethical mandate to enhance broad trial representation.
Purpose To examine the ethical principle of justice as it applies to recruiting diverse populations to clinical trials representation.
Methods In this paper, we analyse the conceptual and practical challenges in applying the principle of justice to clinical trials representation.
Results Different facets of justice include demands for both fair outcomes and fair processes. Including both of these facets in clinical trials policy should not only promote access to trials, but also help to provide a framework to improve fairness in representation in clinical trials. Efforts to evaluate recruitment of representation should include outcome and process measures.
Limitations The suggestions offered based on this conceptual analysis need to be tested empirically.
Conclusions Those involved in the design, conduct and oversight of clinical trials should consider all of the facets of justice when assessing representation in clinical trials and attempt to balance fair access to trials with a fair process that may require protection from being unduly pressured to participate. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 264—269; http://ctj.sagepub.com
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ward E., Jemal A., Cokkinides V., et al. Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status . CA Cancer J Clin2004; 54(2): 78—93.
2.
National Institute of Health.NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research — Amended, October 2001.
3.
Moreno JDGoodbye to all that. The end of moderate protectionism in human subjects research . Hastings Cent Rep2001; 31(3): 9—17.
4.
Powers M.Theories of justice in the context of research. In K ahn JP, Mastroianni AC, Sugarman J eds. Beyond consent: seeking justice in research. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
5.
Ford JG, Howerton MW, Bolen S., et al. Knowledge and access to information on recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ)2005; (122): 1—11.
6.
NationalCancer Institute. Report of the Clinical Trials Working Group of the National Cancer Advisory Board. Restructuring the National Cancer ClinicalTrialsEnterprise. June 2005.
7.
Emanuel EJUndue inducement: nonsense on stilts? Am J Bioeth2005; 5(5): 9—13.
8.
Sateren WB, Trimble EL, Abrams J., et al. How sociodemographics, presence of oncology specialists, and hospital cancer programs affect accrual to cancer treatment trials. J Clin Oncol2002; 20(8): 2109—17.
9.
Powe NR, Gary TLClinical trials. In Beech BM, Goodman M eds. Race & research: perspectives on minority participation in health studies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 2004.
10.
Bolen S., Tilburt J., Baffi C., et al. Defining `success' in recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: Moving toward a more consistent approach . Cancer2006; 106(6): 1197—204.
11.
Corbie-Smith G., Moody-Ayers S., Thrasher ADClosing the circle between minority inclusion in research and health disparities. Arch Intern Med2004; 164: 1362—64.
12.
Wendler D., Kington R., Madans J., et al. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PloSMed.2005 Dec 6; 3(2): e19 [Epub ahead of print].
13.
Kass NE, Sugarman J., Faden R., Schoch-Spana M.Trust — The fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. Hastings Cent Rep1996; 26(5): 25—9.
14.
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PSThe therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care2002; 40(9 Suppl): V55—V63.
15.
Appelbaum PSClarifying the ethics of clinical research: a path toward avoiding the therapeutic misconception. Am J Bioeth2002; 2(2): 22—3.
16.
Bloche MGRace-based therapeutics. N Engl J Med2004 ; 351(20): 2035—37.
17.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JFPrinciples of biomedical ethics. fifth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2001.
18.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.The belmont report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979.
19.
US Department of Health and Human Services.Protections of human subjects. 45CFR part 46; 1991 .
20.
Kahn JP, Mastrolanni AC, Sugarman J.Implementing justice in a changing Research Environment. In Kahn JP, Mastrolanni AC, Sugarman J (eds). Beyond Consent: seeking justice in research. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp:166—174
