Harms,benefits,and the nature of interventions in pragmatic clinical trials

Abstract

To produce evidence capable of informing healthcare decision making at all critical levels, pragmatic clinical trials are diverse both in terms of the type of intervention (medical, behavioral, and/or technological) and the target of intervention (patients, clinicians, and/or healthcare system processes). Patients and clinicians may be called on to participate as designers, investigators, intermediaries, or subjects of pragmatic clinical trials. Other members of the healthcare team, as well as the healthcare system itself, also may be affected directly or indirectly before, during, or after study implementation. This diversity in the types and targets of pragmatic clinical trial interventions has brought into focus the need to consider whether existing ethics and regulatory principles, policies, and procedures are appropriate for pragmatic clinical trials. Specifically, further examination is needed to identify how the types and targets of pragmatic clinical trial interventions may influence the assessment of net potential risk, understood as the balance of potential harms and benefits. In this article, we build on scholarship seeking to align ethics and regulatory requirements with potential research risks and propose an approach to the assessment of net risks that is sensitive to the diverse nature of pragmatic clinical trial interventions. We clarify the potential harms, burdens, benefits, and advantages of common types of pragmatic clinical trial interventions and discuss implications for patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems.

Keywords

Research ethics bioethics harms benefits pragmatic clinical trials

Introduction

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) often employ approaches to identify the impact of healthcare and systems interventions that have the potential to increase the quality, improve the experience, or reduce the cost of care.^1,2 To produce evidence capable of informing healthcare decision making, PCTs are diverse both in terms of the type of intervention (medical, behavioral, and/or technological) and the target of intervention (patients, clinicians, and/or healthcare system processes).³ Multiple study designs are used to answer pragmatic research questions, with each design requiring different types and degrees of engagement with individuals in order to successfully test interventions and obtain necessary data.⁴ Patients and clinicians may be called on to participate as designers, investigators, intermediaries, or subjects of PCTs. Other members of the healthcare team, as well as the healthcare system itself, may also be affected directly or indirectly before, during, or after study implementation.

This diversity in the types and targets of PCT interventions has brought into focus the need to consider whether existing ethics and regulatory principles, policies, and procedures—designed with traditional biomedical and behavioral research in mind—are appropriate for PCTs.^5,6 Recent scholarship has highlighted some of the ethics and regulatory issues raised by PCTs and comparative effectiveness research (CER);^7–19 however, there remains a need to examine how differences in the types and targets of PCT interventions can influence the assessment of potential net research risk, understood as the balance of potential harms and benefits.^20,21

In this article, we build on scholarship seeking better alignment of ethics and regulatory oversight with potential research risks.²² While current ethics and regulatory frameworks, rooted in the protection of patient-subjects, advance an important perspective on potential harms and benefits, we propose a broader framework that also explicitly acknowledges potential harms and benefits that may accrue to other individuals and entities participating in PCTs, namely, clinicians and healthcare systems. We clarify the types of potential harms, burdens, benefits, and advantages of common categories of PCT interventions for patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems. Theoretical and practical implications of this analysis for related ethics and regulatory constructs are also discussed.

Traditional ethics and regulatory focus: potential harms and benefits to human subjects

Ethics and regulatory standards relating to the responsibilities of clinical researchers and the protection of research participants are well established in the United States. From a regulatory perspective, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have enumerated basic investigator responsibilities.^23–28 Additional, nonbinding federal policy recommendations addressing investigators’ responsibilities have also recently been proposed by the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues and the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP).²⁹ Regulatory requirements primarily aimed at safeguarding research participants are also detailed under HHS regulations (known as the Common Rule)²⁸ and FDA regulations^27,30 and include provisions relating to institutional review board (IRB) review, informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, proper selection of research subjects, minimizing risks and ensuring they are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, informing subjects about significant new findings, respecting the right to withdraw from research, protecting vulnerable subjects, and other substantive or procedural elements that seek to protect research participants. Considerable official guidance pertaining to these protections has been issued by the US Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), and nonbinding policy recommendations have been proposed by SACHRP.^31,32

With some exceptions (e.g. added protections for pregnant women, human fetuses and neonates, prisoners, or children involved in research),^33–37 health research regulations typically do not define norms and obligations in relation to the individual capabilities or characteristics of human subjects. Individuals who possess greater or lesser knowledge, skills, or acumen are not, as a rule, given special status. For example, a healthcare professional who is asked to share, for research purposes, data about his or her referral preferences and practices is afforded the same regulatory protections as any other member of society. Instead, regulatory jurisdiction—the limits of which are codified in exclusions, exceptions, and exemptions^38,39—has been based primarily on determinations of whether particular activities constitute HHS-supported/conducted or FDA-regulated research involving human subjects. It is noteworthy that HHS and FDA definitions of “research” (“clinical investigation” under FDA regulation) and “human subject” differ.^40–42

From a scholarly perspective, the potential and actual risk of harm to patient-subjects enrolling in “traditional” explanatory clinical research (i.e. research designed to understand biological mechanisms and processes) has been heavily reviewed and discussed.^43,44 The focus on protecting patient-subjects from potential harm is primarily rooted in concerns over the introduction of new and sometimes unknown risks associated with experimental medical interventions and the possibility that researchers may be divided in their loyalty to individual research participants when driven significantly by the desire to produce generalizable knowledge for the benefit of others.^45,46 Well-known historical examples of unethical research, largely involving vulnerable individuals who were exposed to significant and unjustifiable harms in pursuit of scientific goals, underscored the drive to maintain strong protective oversight measures.^47–49 Ethics and regulatory requirements established in the wake of these events seek to ensure that the risks of research are minimized and justified and that the rights and interests of individual research participants are prioritized and respected. As a result, in the context of explanatory clinical trials where one can typically draw relatively clear boundaries between the types and targets of interventions, patient-subjects have been the central focus of concern, with other research stakeholders implicitly considered marginally and primarily with respect to how their role affects, or is affected by, patient-subjects.

With respect to PCTs, which seek to generate actionable evidence to inform common clinical practices,¹ approaches used to analyze net risk in explanatory clinical trials may yield an incomplete assessment of the potential impact of PCTs on the multiple stakeholders who bear the burdens and stand to benefit from research.⁵⁰ While it is likely unwarranted to suggest that PCTs are deserving of broad alternative ethics and regulatory consideration when assessing net risk, a more sensitive itemization of the potential harms, burdens, benefits, and advantages of various PCT interventions can inform future policy development and facilitate more efficient and effective ethics review.

A broader look at potential harms and benefits for interventional PCTs

National and local efforts to advance evidence-based medicine, the clinical translation of science, and the development of a learning healthcare system have led to an increase in clinical research networks and PCTs to improve the quality and value of healthcare.^51–53 Large-scale national efforts, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory⁵⁴ and the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet),⁵⁵ have emerged seeking to better understand and coordinate pragmatic clinical research systems to advance effective and efficient PCTs and patient-centered CER.

As noted above, the constituency served by such PCTs is broader than that served by explanatory trials.⁵⁶ Patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems may all be targeted directly in PCTs, depending on the nature of the intervention. To illustrate, PCTs may focus on changes in health outcomes that result from medical and behavioral interventions targeting patients, such as comparing the effects of two or more commonly used drugs, diet or exercise regimens, or medical advice compliance strategies. PCTs may also focus more directly on clinician practices, such as determining whether introducing readily available epidemiological evidence into lumbar spine imaging reports has an impact on physician diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations⁵⁷ or whether automatically notifying clinicians about alternative generic drug options changes prescription practices. Countless other pragmatic studies could be conducted with the goal of identifying the most effective approaches for improving health communication between clinicians and patients or others. Healthcare systems may also be the primary target of PCT interventions, for example, comparing workflow models to determine the most efficient staffing arrangement to decrease medical expenses while meeting patient expectations and maintaining satisfactory health outcomes. Also, as with other types of research, society more broadly can be an important stakeholder in terms of the potential treatment benefits from increased knowledge generated by PCTs and resulting health policy decisions.

These illustrations lead to a further observation that PCTs not only target multiple different kinds of individuals and entities but also fall within three broad interventional categories: medical, behavioral, and information technological. Medical interventions can be understood as any activity that is directly related to the treatment of patients, for example, PCTs examining the use of different drugs, devices, or procedures. Behavioral interventions include efforts to alter habits, compliance with clinical instructions, and the management of beliefs or attitudes that could affect clinical care or psychological and physical well-being. The integration of information technology interventions in PCTs allows for greater understanding of the interface between health management and electronic data coordination, measurement, and communication.

While these distinctions can be important to ethics and regulatory analyses, perhaps more critical to acknowledge is that multiple types and targets of PCT interventions often overlap within a single study. A PCT introducing new electronic decision support tools for primary care physicians to reduce the unnecessary prescription of antibiotics can be viewed as a medical, behavioral, and technological intervention that will have an impact on not only clinicians but also healthcare system processes and the health of current and future patients.⁵⁸ Similarly, a smoking cessation behavioral intervention could be undertaken using various technological aids, such as devices designed to allow participants to taper off cigarette use through informational alerts signaling when they can use a nicotine replacement. Such a study would assess the medically relevant behavioral outcomes resulting from the use of the new information technology. Under these types of cross-cutting studies, it will be necessary to carefully evaluate potential harms/burdens and benefits/advantages that may accrue to all direct and indirect interventional targets.⁵⁹

The variability and overlap in the types and targets of interventions compels a more nuanced and differentiated look at potential harms and benefits of PCTs. The variety of interventions and stakeholders in PCTs increases the potential for far-reaching benefits, advantages, harms, and burdens. Table 1 provides a framework and examples of potential harms or burdens and possible benefits to members of the three target groups who may be the subject of medical, behavioral, and technological PCT interventions. As illustrated in the table, medical and behavioral interventions share many of the same potential burdens and benefits such as increased or decreased privacy, physical health, or psychological well-being at the patient level; increased or decreased time commitment, confidence, reputation, or autonomy at the clinician level; and increased or decreased cost, staff/patient satisfaction, workflow efficiency, ranking/reputation, and liability at the healthcare system level. When medical and behavioral interventions incorporate significant information technology components, additional important considerations arise including whether the technology is likely to materially change (positively or negatively) the way in which healthcare is personalized, accessed, delivered, combined, communicated, or measured (Table 1).

Table 1.

Examples of potential harms/burdens and benefits/advantages of PCTs by type and target of intervention.

Target of intervention or interaction	Potential harms/burdens	Potential benefits/advantages
Medical and behavioral interventions (drug, device, or procedure; educational, attitudinal, or adherence)
Patient	Inconvenience of regimen Loss of privacy Poorer health outcomes Psychosocial discomfort	Commitment to regimen More time with care teams Better health outcomes Fulfillment of altruistic desires
Clinician	Increased time commitment Additional professional oversight Decreased confidence/reputation Decreased clinical autonomy Increased medical error	Advancing the field Improved care delivery Increased confidence/reputation Increased patient trust Decreased medical error
System	Increased financial costs Decreased staff/patient satisfaction Decreased workflow efficiency Decreased ranking/reputation New liabilities	Decreased financial costs Improved staff/patient satisfaction Increased workflow efficiency Improved ranking/reputation Better management of liabilities
Information technology interventions (electronic data management, measurement, or communication)
Patient	Increased potential for loss of privacy Decontextualization of disease Depersonalization of care and communication Lower accessibility (limited resources or tech capabilities)	Better adherence to regimen Better health outcomes Improved continuity of care Greater access to clinicians More thorough understanding of disease condition Better opportunity to report patient-level outcomes
Clinician	Greater security-associated liabilities Increased frustration and inconvenience Depersonalization of care Increased dependence Insufficient communication or understanding Increased medical error	Increased efficiency and optimization of care delivery Improved communication accuracy Improved communication speed Broadened medical skill set Decreased medical error
System	Perceived endorsement of experimental technology Unforeseen stresses to system resources Incompatibility with existing information technologies	Better staffing synergies Fewer care redundancies Faster rollout/uptake of system-wide improvements Better data interoperability Increased monitoring capabilities

PCT: pragmatic clinical trial.

These and other benefits and burdens can be expected or unexpected. For example, at a systems level, some short-term inconveniences associated with testing a new electronic prescribing system may be expected and accepted based on anticipated long-term advantages. But unexpected inefficiencies, such as those associated with frequent system updates necessitating significant retraining, or additional efficiencies, such as those associated with the integration of real-time patient-reported medication data, may also emerge. While some PCTs may be more predictable in their anticipated burdens and benefits, others are intentionally adaptive—making it even more difficult to anticipate precisely who will be affected and how. Furthermore, given the traditional focus on potential harms and benefits to patient-subjects in clinical research, it can be particularly easy to overlook or minimize the potential harms and benefits of PCT interventions for clinicians and healthcare systems.

As a practical matter, therefore, variation in the design and target of PCT interventions poses challenges for ethics review by IRBs. Each protocol can present unique interpretive issues resulting in research delays, especially for multisite research where inconsistencies across IRBs require reconciliation.⁶⁰ PCTs may require a more complex calculation to arrive at a decision on whether to approve a study and what risk-minimization measures must be implemented, if any. For example, a cluster-randomized PCT of contagious disease treatment protocols could introduce potential risks for clinicians, such as increased risk of exposure to infectious diseases, or disparagement of a clinician or team for not supporting the intervention. At the same time, the PCT could offer a chance to improve patient outcomes and decrease exposure rates by refining the treatment approach and reducing the spread to clinicians and others. In such a study, it can be difficult to weigh and compare potential risks and benefits to the multiple affected parties. These multidimensional risk assessments are not unique to PCTs, but are common to pragmatic research questions. Given that such risk assessments can lead to important determinations about whether, to what extent, and from whom informed consent or authorization is required, additional guidance seems warranted to clarify how the types and targets of interventions in PCTs ought to inform the analysis of net risk.

IRBs have traditionally played an important role in evaluating the net risks of PCTs. The Common Rule requires IRBs to ensure that

[R]isks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result. In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research (as distinguished from risks and benefits of therapies subjects would receive even if not participating in the research). The IRB should not consider possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in the research (for example, the possible effects of the research on public policy) as among those research risks that fall within the purview of its responsibility.⁶¹

In order to adequately assess the net risk of complex PCTs involving multiple types of interventions and target groups, the ratio of potential harms and benefits for each type of participant must be examined thoroughly, and IRBs, sponsors, and investigators must ensure that the risks to each participant are reasonable in relation to the possible benefit. Investigators and institutions should also evaluate the risks to others who may be affected by the clinical trial, though not as participants; for example, studies involving drugs with teratogenic effects or those that could expose others to live virus vaccination risks.⁶² While IRBs, by regulation, are required not to consider the possible long-range effects of applying knowledge gained in research, it is important that they systematically assess the degree and possible impact of risks, and indeed potential benefits, posed by PCTs to any participant or other potentially affected person. During the course of research, continuous monitoring and reporting, when appropriate, of “unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others,” as required under HHS and FDA regulations, is equally critical.^62–65

IRBs have become familiar with these review and reporting requirements; however, with large multisite PCTs that potentially involve several IRBs, the coordination of review and reporting processes often requires prioritization if efficiency-related goals are to be realized.⁶⁰ Challenges associated with multisite review and reporting have been described previously,⁶⁶ and various models for streamlining coordination across institutions are being considered, with single or lead IRB review approaches currently being proposed by entities such as the NIH⁶⁷ and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) for some studies.⁶⁸ It is noteworthy that SACHRP recommendations to OHRP and FDA, while generally supportive of “single IRB review models” for research in which multiple sites follow a common study protocol, also emphasize the need for “material local variations [to] continue to be recognized and accommodated in study design and conduct.”⁶⁹ Existing and emerging models for broader coordination of oversight within institutions may also help to inform network-level coordination. For example, institutional systems for coordination across IRB, research risk, quality improvement, or biosafety committees could be modeled at a more central level or leveraged to reserve local review for particular oversight needs.

Additional implications for stakeholder engagement and responsibilities

Moving beyond the implications for IRBs and regulatory requirements, a broader perspective on the potential risks and benefits of PCTs can inform stakeholder and public engagement efforts to identify the value of PCTs, to discuss the ethical acceptability of particular types of tradeoffs, and to build trust in healthcare systems research. Consistent with existing stakeholder engagement recommendations and frameworks,^70,71 we believe wider community discussions, structured forums, and deliberative sessions are necessary to clarify the nature of different PCT interventions and the range of associated potential benefits and burdens. This is important not only for “buy-in” but also to support institutional and national policy development and policy evaluation to ensure regulatory interpretations align with societal expectations and values. Furthermore, because PCTs often seek to improve clinical practices that may be deeply entrenched at multiple levels, engagement and partnership within healthcare systems are essential, both ethically and practically, to identify and address relevant values and ensure effective implementation both during and after pragmatic trials.^4,72,73 These engagement practices are increasingly becoming a part of nationally coordinated pragmatic research efforts, such as PCORnet, capable of aligning clinical, public health, and healthcare systems research goals.

Finally, an open and comprehensive accounting of the potential harms, burdens, benefits, and advantages of PCTs can also inform ongoing discussions around reasons and obligations to participate in PCTs. Some scholars have explored whether patients and members of society have a prima facie moral duty (or social obligation) to participate in research,^18,74–78 but few have discussed this duty in relation to either clinicians⁷⁹ or healthcare systems.^18,80 The rationale for supporting a duty to participate has been based on various ethics principles including beneficence, contributing to the common good, and justice. However, the obligation to participate in research is not typically considered to be absolute, and just as considerations of potential harms and benefits of research play a central role in determining consent, authorization, and notice requirements, we believe these considerations should also play a central role in determining whether broader duty-based obligations to participate in PCTs exist. What can be expected of a patient, clinician, or healthcare system in the name of research (e.g. take medication at a particular time of day, receive automated reminders, furnish a particular kind of hand sanitizer) depends on the net risk of the particular intervention and who bears the burdens and benefits of participation. A clearer articulation of how PCTs can affect multiple levels of stakeholders (both positively and negatively) allows for more informed debate around whether implied authorization may exist for particular stakeholders under certain types of studies. Examination of the impact of the intervention on the clinician–patient relationship and on patient expectations is also critical to any analysis of the obligation to participate in research.

Conclusion

Thorough assessment of potential harms and benefits of PCTs requires the application of a framework that is sensitive to the multiple and overlapping types and targets of PCT interventions. IRBs, clinical investigators, sponsors, and others often struggle to evaluate net risk to patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems engaged in PCTs. The framework discussed in this article may inform a more systematic and comprehensive approach to risk assessment and support broader efforts to navigate the range of ethics and regulatory challenges and obligations emerging in PCTs. Sustained involvement of diverse PCT stakeholders in these efforts can help ensure that ethics and regulatory policies and practices are relevant, sustainable, and supportive of patient, clinician, healthcare system, and societal priorities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Frank Miller for providing critical review of the manuscript and Liz Wing, MA, for assistance with manuscript development and editing. Ms Wing is an employee of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, and received no compensation for her work apart from her usual salary. The views presented here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee, or other participants in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors have no conflicting interests to declare.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, through a cooperative agreement (U54 AT007748) from the Office of Strategic Coordination within the Office of the NIH Director. Additional support was provided by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award for the development of the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet).

References

Tunis

Stryer

Clancy

CM.

Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290: 1624–1632.

Glasgow

RE.

What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav 2013; 40: 257–265.

Califf

Sugarman

Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials 2015; 12: 436–441.

Johnson

Tachibana

Coronado

. A guide to research partnerships for pragmatic clinical trials. BMJ. Epub ahead of print 1 December 2014. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g6826.

Kass

Faden

Goodman

. The research-treatment distinction: a problematic approach for determining which activities should have ethical oversight. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S4–S15.

Sugarman

Califf

RM.

Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 2014; 311: 2381–2382.

Lantos

JD.

Learning the right lessons from the SUPPORT study controversy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2014; 99: F4–F5.

Sacks

Warren

CE.

Foreseeable risks? Informed consent for studies within the standard of care. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 306–307.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Draft guidance on disclosing reasonably foreseeable risks in research evaluating standards of care. In: Federal register. 2014, vol. 79, pp. 63629–63634, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/newsroom/rfc/comstdofcare.html (accessed 20 January 2015).

10.

Faden

Beauchamp

Kass

NE.

Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 766–768.

11.

Joffe

Wertheimer

Determining minimal risk for comparative effectiveness research. IRB 2014; 36: 16–18.

12.

Platt

Kass

McGraw

Ethics, regulation, and comparative effectiveness research: time for a change. JAMA 2014; 311: 1497–1498.

13.

Faden

Kass

Whicher

. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care 2013; 51: S53–S57.

14.

Kim

McGraw

Mamo

. Development of a privacy and security policy framework for a multistate comparative effectiveness research network. Med Care 2013; 51: S66–S72.

15.

Kass

Faden

Tunis

Addressing low-risk comparative effectiveness research in proposed changes to US federal regulations governing research. JAMA 2012; 307: 1589–1590.

16.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Rethinking clinical trials: A living textbook of pragmatic clinical trials, http://sites.duke.edu/rethinkingclinicaltrials/ (accessed 20 January 2015).

17.

Kim

Miller

FG.

Informed consent for pragmatic trials—the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 769–772.

18.

Faden

Kass

Goodman

. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S16–S27.

19.

Anderson

Griffin

Goldkind

. The Food and Drug Administration and pragmatic clinical trials of marketed medical products. Clin Trials 2015; 12: 511–519.

20.

Kim

Miller

FG.

Varieties of standard-of-care treatment randomized trials: ethical implications. JAMA 2015; 313: 895–896.

21.

Selby

Krumholz

HM.

Ethical oversight: serving the best interests of patients. Commentary. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S34–S36.

22.

Rid

How should we regulate risk in biomedical research? An ethical analysis of recent policy proposals and initiatives. Health Policy 2014; 117: 409–420.

23.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR312. Investigational new drug application, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRsearch.cfm?CFRPart=312 (accessed 9 December 2014).

24.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Good clinical practice (GCP), http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm090259.htm (accessed 20 January 2015).

25.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Clinical trials and human subject protection, http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/ (accessed 20 January 2015).

26.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR812. Investigational device exemptions. Subpart E—Responsibilities of investigators, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=812&showFR=1&subpartNode=21:8.0.1.1.9.5 (accessed 16 April 2015).

27.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR50. Protection of human subjects, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=50&showfr=1 (accessed 28 October 2014).

28.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46. Protection of human subjects, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html (accessed 13 January 2015).

29.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research protections (SACHRP). Recommendations regarding investigator responsibilities, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/commsec/attachmentc-sec.letter19.pdf (accessed 20 January 2015).

30.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR56. Institutional review boards, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?cfrpart=56&showfr=1 (accessed 9 October 2014).

31.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Policy and guidance index, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/index/index.html (accessed 14 April 2015).

32.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research protections (SACHRP). SACHRP recommendations by topic, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/commsecbytopic/index.html (accessed 14 April 2015).

33.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46. Protection of human subjects. Subpart B, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#subpartb (accessed 20 January 2015).

34.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46. Protection of human subjects. Subpart C, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#subpartc (accessed 20 January 2015).

35.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46. Protection of human subjects. Subpart D, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#subpartd (accessed 20 January 2015).

36.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR50. Protection of human subjects. Subpart D—additional safeguards for children in clinical investigations, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=50.50 (accessed 16 April 2015).

37.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR50.24. Protection of human subjects—exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=50.24 (accessed 14 April 2015).

38.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46.101. To what does this policy apply? http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.101 (accessed 14 April 2015).

39.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR56.104(c). Institutional review boards—exemptions from IRB requirement, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=56.104 (accessed 14 April 2015).

40.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46.102. Definitions, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.102 (accessed 21 January 2015).

41.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR50.3. Protection of human subjects—definitions, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=50.3 (accessed 14 April 2015).

42.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR56.102. Institutional review boards—definition, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=56.102 (accessed 14 April 2015).

43.

Horstmann

McCabe

Grochow

. Risks and benefits of phase 1 oncology trials, 1991 through 2002. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 895–904.

44.

Lidz

Appelbaum

Grisso

. Therapeutic misconception and the appreciation of risks in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 1689–1697.

45.

Miller

Rosenstein

DeRenzo

EG.

Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA 1998; 280: 1449–1454.

46.

Beecher

HK.

Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 1966; 274: 1354–1360.

47.

Caplan

AL.

When medicine went mad: bioethics and the holocaust. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1992.

48.

Washington

HA.

Medical apartheid: the dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present. New York: Doubleday, 2006.

49.

Barth

Human medical trials. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2005.

50.

Lantos

Wendler

Septimus

. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 485–493.

51.

Selker

Strom

Ford

. White paper on CTSA consortium role in facilitating comparative effectiveness research: September 23, 2009 CTSA consortium strategic goal committee on comparative effectiveness research. Clin Transl Sci 2010; 3: 29–37.

52.

Institute of Medicine. Evidence-based medicine and the changing nature of health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2008, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12041 (accessed 21 January 2015).

53.

Sackett

DL.

Evidence-based medicine. Semin Perinatol 1997; 21: 3–5.

54.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory, https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 10 July 2014).

55.

PCORnet: the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, http://www.pcornet.org/ (accessed 21 January 2015).

56.

Armstrong

Methods in comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4208–4214.

57.

National Institutes of Health. NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration Projects. Lumbar Image Reporting with Epidemiology (LIRE). https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/demonstration-projects/Pages/LIRE.aspx (accessed 21 January 2015).

58.

Gulliford

van Staa

Dregan

. Electronic health records for intervention research: a cluster randomized trial to reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care (eCRT study). Ann Fam Med 2014; 12: 344–351.

59.

Smalley

Merritt

Al-Khatib

. Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 476–484.

60.

O’Rourke

Carrithers

Patrick-Lake

. Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 449–456.

61.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46.111. Criteria for IRB approval of research, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.111 (accessed 14 January 2015).

62.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Code of Federal Regulations, 45CFR46.103. Assuring compliance with this policy, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.103 (accessed 21 January 2015).

63.

US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Guidance on reviewing and reporting unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others and adverse events, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/advevntguid.html (accessed 14 April 2015).

64.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR312.66. Investigational new drug application: assurance of IRB review, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=312.66 (accessed 14 April 2015).

65.

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR56.108(b). Institutional review boards: IRB functions and operations, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=56.108 (accessed 14 April 2015).

66.

Infectious Diseases Society of America. Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49: 328–335.

67.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). Request for comments on the draft NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site research, NOT-OD-15-026, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html (accessed 15 June 2015).

68.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Winter 2015 funding cycle—limited PCORI funding announcement: optimal maintenance aspirin dose for patients with coronary artery disease, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAEahUKEwjHyqqwmZLGAhWMMowKHaUTAJw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcori.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FPCORI-PFA-2015-Winter-Aspirin.pdf&ei=4gd_VcfRCYzlsASlp4DgCQ&usg=AFQjCNHWTKXxZTxQGbd9guyyszsstgXsQA (accessed 15 June 2015).

69.

National Institutes of Health (NIH). SACHRP recommendations on consideration of local context with respect to increasing use of single IRB review, http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-clinical-research-and-bioethics-policy/models-irb-review/sachrp-recommendations-consideration-local-context-respect-increasing-use-single-irb-review (accessed 15 June 2015).

70.

Siegel

Heeringa

Carman

KL.

Public deliberation in decisions about health research. Virtual Mentor 2013; 15: 56–64.

71.

Deverka

Lavallee

Desai

. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res 2012; 1: 181–194.

72.

Slutsky

Sheridan

Selby

Getting engaged. J Gen Intern Med 2014; 29: 1582–1583.

73.

Adelman

Castonguay

Kraus

. Conducting research and collaborating with researchers: the experience of clinicians in a residential treatment center. Psychother Res 2015; 25: 108–120.

74.

Caplan

Is there an obligation to participate in biomedical research? In: Spicker

Alon

de Vries

. (eds) The use of human beings in research. Dordrecht: Springer, 1988, pp. 229–248.

75.

Rennie

Viewing research participation as a moral obligation: in whose interests?

Hastings Cent Rep 2011; 41: 40–47.

76.

Christensen

The re-emergence of the liberal-communitarian debate in bioethics: exercising self-determination and participation in biomedical research. J Med Philos 2012; 37: 255–276.

77.

Schaefer

Emanuel

Wertheimer

The obligation to participate in biomedical research. JAMA 2009; 302: 67–72.

78.

Harris

Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 2005; 31: 242–248.

79.

Greene

Mazor

Gallagher

TH.

Participating in biomedical research. JAMA 2009; 302: 2200–2201; author reply 2202.

80.

Agich

. Health care organization responsibility for quality improvement. In: Jennings

Baily

Bottrell

. (eds) Health care quality improvement: ethical and regulatory issues. Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, 2007, p. 55–67.