Disclosing financial conflicts of interest to potential research subjects does not effect their willingness to participate in research, found a recent Johns Hopkins, Duke, and Wake Forest University study. In fact, the effects of such disclosures upon potential research participants were minimal, except in one group–the participants told that the researchers owned stock in the company doing the research.
These possible research participants, asked about a hypothetical trial in this study, really only cared about one thing–trust. Trust in the institution and the researchers mattered much more to all three groups of study participants than whether any kind of potential conflict was disclosed.
Amazingly, the group who was told that the researchers were paid on a per capital recruitment basis believed that made the investigators motivated to do good research, not motivated merely to enroll more people in the study.
What this goes to show clearly is that trust trumps all in decisions to participate in research–and this fact means that the responsibility of researchers is even greater to ensure that disclosures are made and that trust is not violated. Non-disclosure of potential financial or other conflicts of interest, even if research participants would still choose to participate otherwise, undermines the entire research enterprise and ultimately will erode all trust in the institution and the investigator.
I agree with Dr. Sugarman’s claim that patients have a “right to know” prior to giving consent to participate in research and such disclosures, even if they make no difference in the ultimate outcome of whether persons participate in research are the duty of all investigators.
But be prepared, investigators, if you own stock–you may get a few more prospective participants declining than you might otherwise.
Summer Johnson, PhD