Advertisement

Assessment of medical school institutional review board policies regarding compensation of subjects for research-related injury

  • Michael K. Paasche-Orlow
    Correspondence
    Requests for reprints should be addressed to Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, MD, MPH, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 91 East Concord Street, Suite 200, Boston, Massachusetts 02118.
    Affiliations
    Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Dr. Brancati was supported by a Mid-Career Investigator Award in Patient Oriented Research (K24DK62222).
    Frederick L. Brancati
    Footnotes
    1 Dr. Brancati was supported by a Mid-Career Investigator Award in Patient Oriented Research (K24DK62222).
    Affiliations
    Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    1 Dr. Brancati was supported by a Mid-Career Investigator Award in Patient Oriented Research (K24DK62222).

      Purpose

      Although the Institute of Medicine (IOM) calls for research organizations to compensate subjects for research-related injury, administrators may fear that candid presentation of such policies would create financial risk. We hypothesized that informed consent language at U.S. medical schools would be particularly complex and fall short of IOM goals, especially for projects without industry sponsorship.

      Methods

      Medical school websites (N = 123) were surveyed for informed consent language for research-related injury. Text was extracted from 113 sites (92%) and evaluated for details regarding financial liability for research-related injury. When sufficient template text was available (n = 106), the readability of liability policies was compared with the readability of other standardized passages using Flesch-Kincaid analysis.

      Results

      Coverage for medical bills is offered at 61% (23/38) of schools when there is an industry sponsor as compared with 22% (22/102) when there is none (P <0.001). When coverage is offered in studies with no industry sponsor, it is limited to emergency bills in half (11/22) of these policies. Seventy-two percent (81/113) of medical school consent forms specifically rule out the possibility of monetary compensation. The mean (± SD) reading grade level of liability text in consent forms is higher than that in other template paragraphs (11.5 ± 1.4 vs. 10.6 ± 1.4; P = 0.0001).

      Conclusion

      Federally funded research at most U.S. medical schools is conducted with consent form language that is particularly complex and that fails to protect subjects from the financial burden of research-related injury. Few schools meet IOM standards.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Childress J.F.
        Compensating injured research subjects: I. The moral argument.
        Hastings Cent Rep. 1976; 6: 21-27
      1. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 42 USC (1982) §300v. 1978
        • Faden R.R.
        • Lederer S.E.
        • Moreno J.D.
        US medical researchers, the Nuremberg Doctors Trial, and the Nuremberg Code. A review of findings of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.
        JAMA. 1996; 276: 1667-1671
        • Federman D.D.
        • Hanna K.E.
        • Rodriguez L.L.
        Responsible Research. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C2003
        • Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel
        Final Report. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C1973
        • Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
        Secretary’s Task Force on the Compensation of Injured Research Subjects.
        Final Report. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bethesda, Maryland1977 (Publication No. OS-77-003)
        • The National Bioethics Advisory Commission
        Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Bethesda, Maryland2001 (Available at: http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/pubs.html. Accessed June 9, 2003)
        • Curran W.J.
        Compensation for injured research subjects. Regulation by informed consent.
        N Engl J Med. 1979; 301: 648-649
      2. NIH Awards to Medical Schools by Rank. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland2002 (Available at: http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/ award/rank/medttlnod.htm.. Accessed January 28, 2003)
        • Paasche-Orlow M.K.
        • Taylor H.A.
        • Brancati F.L.
        Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 721-726
        • Doak C.
        • Doak L.
        • Root J.
        Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. 2nd ed. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania1996
        • Kincaid J.P.
        • Fishburne R.P.
        • Rogers R.L.
        • Chissom B.S.
        Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Research Branch Report. Chief of Naval Technical Training, Naval Air Station Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee1975 (8–75)
        • Kincaid J.P.
        • Gamble L.G.
        Ease of comprehension of standard and readable automobile insurance policies as a function of reading ability.
        J Reading Behav. 1977; 9: 85-87
      3. Protection of Human Subjects. 1993 (codified at 45 CFR §46.109, §50.20).
      4. Report of the National Work Group on Literacy and Health. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills.
        J Fam Pract. 1998; 46: 168-176
        • Robertson J.A.
        Compensating injured research subjects: II. The law.
        Hastings Cent Rep. 1976; 6: 29-31
      5. OHRP Guidance. ‘Exculpatory Language’ in informed consent. 2003 (Available at: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/exculp.htm. Accessed June 9, 2003.)
      6. OHRP Guidance. Tips on informed consent. 2003 (Available at: http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/ictips.htm. Accessed June 9)
      7. Medical research.
        BMJ. 1980; 280: 1172-1175
        • Marwick C.
        Compensation for injured research subjects.
        JAMA. 1998; 279: 1854
      8. Who should pay for research harm?.
        Med World News. 1976; 17: 92
        • Guest S.
        Compensation for subjects of medical research.
        J Med Ethics. 1997; 23: 181-185
        • Studdert D.M.
        • Brennan T.A.
        No-fault compensation for medical injuries.
        JAMA. 2001; 286: 217-223
      9. Treatment of Research-Related Injuries to Human Subjects. 1998 (codified at 38 CFR §17.85)
        • Human Subjects Research Review Board
        United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. Medical Care for Research Related Injury (Clause 3.01). 2003 (Available at: http://mrmc.www.army.mil/index.asp?EntryURL=/larindex.asp. Accessed June 4, 2003)
        • Brody B.A.
        Research ethics.
        Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1997; 6: 376-384
        • Beecher H.K.
        Human studies.
        Science. 1969; 164: 1256-1258
        • Havighurst C.C.
        Compensating persons injured in human experimentation.
        Science. 1970; 169: 153-157