Search

In this article, we explore ethical issues of Deaf people's engagement in research. To focus on the perspectives of Deaf people, we investigated existing qualitative and mixed methods research within a qualitative evidence synthesis. Our synthesis is based on a systematic database search (Scopus, PubMed) and reference check of included papers which resulted in 27 eligible papers. We analyzed the data using thematic synthesis and developed 5 analytical themes. The results present research as a struggle for Deaf people and emphasize the need for changes regarding recognition of Deaf research in a cross-cultural context, maintaining equal and partner relations, and provision of accessible communication. Our research contributes to understanding what the ethical inclusion of Deaf people in research implies. It may also support the development of evidence-based normative recommendations and scientific cooperation between Deaf and hearing people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research participants are often deceived for methodological reasons. However, assessing the ethical acceptability of an individual study that uses deception is not straightforward. The academic literature is scattered on the subject and several aspects of the acceptability assessment are only scarcely addressed, which parallels reports of inconsistent ethics review. Therefore, we aimed to investigate where normative guidance documents agree and disagree about this assessment. A PRISMA-Ethics-guided systematic review of normative guidance documents that discuss deception of research participants was conducted. Our search strategy resulted in 55 documents that were subsequently analyzed through abductive thematic analysis. While guidance documents mention little about specific risks and opportunities of deception, our analysis describes a rich picture of the thresholds for acceptability of the risks and benefits of deception and their integration, the comparison with the risk-benefit analysis of alternative non-deceptive methods, and the bodies of people who are positioned to do the review. Our review reveals an agreement on the general process of assessing the acceptability of studies that use deception, although significant variability remains in the details and several topics are largely or completely unaddressed in guidance documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials. Methods and findings Our protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as 'small sample size, non-randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested.' We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting. Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit., Author(s): Marcin Waligora 1, Malgorzata M. Bala 2,*, Magdalena Koperny 1,3, Mateusz T. Wasylewski 1, Karolina Strzebonska 1, Rafal R. Jaeschke 4, Agnieszka Wozniak 5, Jan Piasecki 1, Agnieszka Sliwka [...]