Development of a consensus operational definition of child assent for research

被引:31
作者
Tait, Alan R. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Geisser, Michael E. [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan Hlth Syst, Dept Anesthesiol, 1500 E Med Ctr Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] Univ Michigan Hlth Syst, Phys Med & Rehabil, 1500 E Med Ctr Dr, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[3] Univ Michigan Hlth Syst, Ctr Bioeth & Social Sci Med, 1500 E Med Ctr Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[4] Univ Michigan Hlth Syst, Michigan Inst Clin & Hlth Res, 1500 E Med Ctr Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
来源
BMC MEDICAL ETHICS | 2017年 / 18卷
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Assent; Definition; Children; Adolescents; INFORMED-CONSENT; PARENTAL PERMISSION; DELPHI; AGE;
D O I
10.1186/s12910-017-0199-4
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: There is currently no consensus from the relevant stakeholders regarding the operational and construct definitions of child assent for research. As such, the requirements for assent are often construed in different ways, institutionally disparate, and often conflated with those of parental consent. Development of a standardized operational definition of assent would thus be important to ensure that investigators, institutional review boards, and policy makers consider the assent process in the same way. To this end, we describe a Delphi study that provided consensus from a panel of expert stakeholders regarding the definitions of child assent for research. Methods: Based on current guidelines, a preliminary definition of assent was generated and sent out for review to a Delphi panel including pediatric bioethicists and researchers, Institutional Review Board members, parents, and individuals with regulatory/legal expertise. For each subsequent review, the process of summarizing and revising responses was repeated until consensus was achieved. Panelists were also required to rank order elements of assent that they believed were most important in defining the underlying constructs of the assent process (e.g., capacity for assent, disclosure). In providing these rankings, panelists were asked to frame their responses in the contexts of younger (<= 11 yrs) and adolescents/older children (12-17 yrs) in non-therapeutic and therapeutic trials. Summary rankings of the most important identified elements were then used to generate written construct definitions which were sent out for iterative reviews by the expert panel. Results: Consensus regarding the operational definition was reached by 14/18 (78%) of the panel members. Seventeen (94%) panelists agreed with the definitions of capacity for assent, elements of disclosure for younger children, and the requirements for meaningful assent, respectively. Fifteen (83%) members agreed with the elements of disclosure for adolescents/older children. Conclusions: It is hoped that this study will positively inform and effect change in the way investigators, regulators, and IRBs operationalize the assent process, respect children's developing autonomy, and in concert with parental permission, ensure the protection of children who participate in research.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Physical Restraints: Consensus of a Research Definition Using a Modified Delphi Technique
    Bleijlevens, Michel H. C.
    Wagner, Laura M.
    Capezuti, Elizabeth
    Hamers, Jan P. H.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2016, 64 (11) : 2307 - 2310
  • [42] Initial Steps in Ascent to Assent for Pediatric Critical Care Research
    Zimmerman, Jerry J.
    PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2023, 24 (04) : 350 - 351
  • [43] Research methods for formal consensus development
    James, D.
    Warren-Forward, H.
    NURSE RESEARCHER, 2015, 22 (03) : 35 - 40
  • [44] Alternative Decision-Makers' Perspectives on Assent and Dissent for Dementia Research
    Overton, Eve
    Appelbaum, Paul S.
    Fisher, Stephanie Reyes
    Dohan, Daniel
    Roberts, Laura Weiss
    Dunn, Laura B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY, 2013, 21 (04) : 346 - 354
  • [45] Adolescents with substance use disorder and assent/consent: Empirical data on understanding biobank risks in genomic research
    Coors, Marilyn E.
    Raymond, Kristen M.
    Hopfer, Christian J.
    Sakai, Joseph
    McWilliams, Shannon K.
    Young, Susan
    Mikulich-Gilbertson, Susan K.
    DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE, 2016, 159 : 267 - 271
  • [46] Assent and consent in adolescent research: teachers' perspectives from a developing country
    Alomari, Mahmoud A.
    Al-sheyab, Nihaya A.
    Khabour, Omar F.
    Alzoubi, Karem H.
    HELIYON, 2020, 6 (01)
  • [47] Parental Perceptions About Informed Consent/Assent in Pediatric Research in Jordan
    Khabour, Omar F.
    Alomari, Mahmoud A.
    Al-sheyab, Nihaya A.
    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2017, 12 (04) : 261 - 268
  • [48] THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONSENSUS DEFINITION FOR HEALTHCARE IMPROVEMENT SCIENCE (HIS) IN SEVEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: A CONSENSUS METHODS APPROACH
    Skela-Savic, Brigita
    MacRAE, Rhoda
    Lillo-Crespo, Manuel
    Rooney, Kevin D.
    ZDRAVSTVENO VARSTVO, 2017, 56 (02): : 82 - 90
  • [49] Voluntary assent in biomedical research with adolescents: A comparison of parent and adolescent views
    Brody, JL
    Scherer, DG
    Annett, RD
    Pearson-Bish, M
    ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 2003, 13 (01) : 79 - 95
  • [50] Consensus Parameter: Research Methodologies to Evaluate Neurodevelopmental Effects of Pubertal Suppression in Transgender Youth
    Chen, Diane
    Strang, John F.
    Kolbuck, Victoria D.
    Rosenthal, Stephen M.
    Wallen, Kim
    Waber, Deborah P.
    Steinberg, Laurence
    Sisk, Cheryl L.
    Ross, Judith
    Paus, Tomas
    Mueller, Sven C.
    McCarthy, Margaret M.
    Micevych, Paul E.
    Martin, Carol L.
    Kreukels, Baudewijntje P. C.
    Kenworthy, Lauren
    Herting, Megan M.
    Herlitz, Agneta
    Haraldsen, Ira R. J. Hebold
    Dahl, Ronald
    Crone, Eveline A.
    Chelune, Gordon J.
    Burke, Sarah M.
    Berenbaum, Sheri A.
    Beltz, Adriene M.
    Bakker, Julie
    Eliot, Lise
    Vilain, Eric
    Wallace, Gregory L.
    Nelson, Eric E.
    Garofalo, Robert
    TRANSGENDER HEALTH, 2020, 5 (04) : 246 - 257