Abstracts
Abstract
Re-contacting minors enrolled in research upon their reaching the age of majority or maturity to seek their autonomous consent to continue their participation is considered an ethical requirement. This issue has generally been studied in the context of minors who are actively involved in the research. However, what becomes of this issue when the minor has been withdrawn from the research or has been lost to follow-up? May researchers re-contact the minor at the age of majority or maturity under these circumstances to seek the consent of the minor to re-join the research? In this paper, we explore the ethical permissibility of recontacting minors whose participation in research has ended, once they have reached the age of majority or maturity. In particular, we identify scenarios in which the participation of a minor in a research project may end and discuss factors that can help determine such an ethical permissibility. Finally, we discuss the practical and ethical challenges of re-contact and present re-consent models that may be used by researchers.
Keywords:
- re-contact,
- re-consent,
- minors,
- consent,
- assent,
- research,
- ethics
Résumé
Le re-contact des mineurs inscrits dans des recherches lorsqu’ils atteignent l’âge de la majorité ou de la maturité afin d’obtenir leur consentement autonome pour poursuivre leur participation est considéré comme une exigence éthique. Cette question a généralement été étudiée dans le contexte des mineurs qui participent activement à la recherche. Cependant, qu’en est-il lorsque le mineur s’est retiré de la recherche ou a été perdu de vue? Les chercheurs peuvent-ils, dans ces circonstances, recontacter le mineur à l’âge de la majorité ou de la maturité afin d’obtenir son consentement à participer à nouveau à la recherche? Dans cet article, nous explorons la possibilité éthique de recontacter les mineurs dont la participation à la recherche a pris fin, une fois qu’ils ont atteint l’âge de la majorité ou de la maturité. En particulier, nous identifions les scénarios dans lesquels la participation d’un mineur à un projet de recherche peut prendre fin et nous discutons des facteurs qui peuvent aider à déterminer cette licéité éthique. Enfin, nous discutons des défis pratiques et éthiques du re-contact et présentons des modèles de re-consentement qui peuvent être utilisés par les chercheurs.
Mots-clés :
- re-contact,
- re-consentement,
- mineurs,
- consentement,
- assentiment,
- recherche,
- éthique
Appendices
Bibliography
- 1. O’Donnell KA, Gaudreau H, Colalillo S, et al. The maternal adversity, vulnerability and neurodevelopment project: theory and methodology. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;59(9):497-508.
- 2. Guo Y, Logan HL, Glueck DH, Muller KE. Selecting a sample size for studies with repeated measures. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13(1).
- 3. Knoppers BM, Sénécal K, Boisjoli J, et al. Recontacting pediatric research participants for consent when they reach the age of majority. IRB. 2016;38(6):1-9.
- 4. Hartsock JA, Schwartz PH, Waltz AC, Ott MA. Anticipatory waivers of consent for pediatric biobanking. Ethics & Human Research. 2019;41(2):14-21.
- 5. Poulain T, Baber R, Vogel M, et al. The LIFE Child study: a population-based perinatal and pediatric cohort in Germany. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2017;32(2):145-58.
- 6. Dove ES, Avard D, Black L, Knoppers BM. Emerging issues in paediatric health research consent forms in Canada: working towards best practices. BMC Medical Ethics. 2013;14(1).
- 7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada; 2018.
- 8. Berkman BE, Howard D, Wendler D. Reconsidering the need for reconsent at 18. Pediatrics. 2018;142(2): e20171202.
- 9. Brothers KB, Wilfond BS. Research consent at the age of majority: preferable but not obligatory. Pediatrics. 2018;142(2): e20173038.
- 10. Villanueva AG, Majumder MA. Hashtag who’s missing? Lessons for genomic databases. Disability and Health Journal. 2021;14(1):100945.
- 11. Civil Code of Québec, CQLR c CCQ-1991.
- 12. Jeremic V, Sénécal K, Borry P, Chokoshvili D, Vears DF. Participation of children in medical decision-making: challenges and potential solutions. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2016;13(4):525-34.
- 13. Kleiderman E, Thompson R, Borry P, Boily A, Knoppers BM. Doping controls and the ‘Mature Minor’ elite athlete: towards clarification?. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 2020;12(1):179-87.
- 14. Dalpé G, Thorogood A, Knoppers BM. A tale of two capacities: including children and decisionally vulnerable adults in biomedical research. Frontiers in Genetics. 2019;10:289.
- 15. Cherry MJ. Adolescents lack sufficient maturity to consent to medical research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2017;45(3):307-17.
- 16. Cheah PY, Parker M. Are children always vulnerable research participants?. Asian Bioethics Review. 2015;7(2):151-63.
- 17. Paquette ET, Ross LF. Consent is the cornerstone of ethically valid research: Ethical issues in recontacting subjects who enrolled in research as a minor. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2015;15(10):61-3.
- 18. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191-4.
- 19. Rahimzadeh V. Sharing outside the sandbox? The child’s right to an open data sharing future in genomics and personalized medicine. In: Verma M, Barh D, eds. Progress and Challenges in Precision Medicine. London, UK: Academic Press 2017. p. 171-185.
- 20. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations; 1989.
- 21. Carbonnier C. Les notions à contenu variable dans le droit français de la famille. In: Perelman C, vander Elst R, eds. Les notions à contenu variable en droit. Brussels: Emile Bruylant; 1984. p. 99-112.
- 22. Salter EK. Deciding for a child: a comprehensive analysis of the best interest standard. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2012;33(3):179-98.
- 23. Brothers KB, Lynch JA, Aufox SA, et al. Practical guidance on informed consent for pediatric participants in a biorepository. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2014; 89(11):1471-1480.
- 24. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans, 4th Edition. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; 2016.
- 25. Elks ML. The right to participate in research studies. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine. 1993; 122(2):130-6.
- 26. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
- 27. Giesbertz NA, Bredenoord AL, van Delden JJ. When children become adults: should biobanks re-contact?. PLoS Medicine. 2016;13(2):e1001959.
- 28. Singleton MK, Moon M, Jorgensen EV. Beyond biobanking: future use of specimens and data from pediatric participants. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2020;221:S49-52.
- 29. Miller VA, Nelson RM. A developmental approach to child assent for nontherapeutic research. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2006;149(1):S25-30.
- 30. Roth-Cline M, Nelson RM. Parental permission and child assent in research on children. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. 2013;86(3):291-301.
- 31. Kong CC, Tarling TE, Strahlendorf C, Dittrick M, Vercauteren SM. Opinions of adolescents and parents about pediatric biobanking. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2016;58(4):474-80.
- 32. Oulton K, Gibson F, Sell D, Williams A, Pratt L, Wray J. Assent for children’s participation in research: why it matters and making it meaningful. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2016;42(4):588-97.
- 33. Rahimzadeh V, Schickhardt C, Knoppers BM, et al. Key implications of data sharing in pediatric genomics. JAMA pediatrics. 2018;172(5):476-81.
- 34. Hammer MJ. Consent and assent in pediatric research: whose right is it anyway. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2016;43(3):281-3.
- 35. Rahimzadeh V, Sénécal K, Kleiderman E, Knoppers BM. Minors and incompetent adults: A tale of two populations. In: Illes J, ed. Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2017. p. 1-27.
- 36. Bos W, Westra A, de Beaufort I, van de Vathorst S. To stop or not to stop: dissent and undue burden as reasons to stop participation in paediatric research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2017;43(8):519-23.
- 37. Ross LF. Informed consent in pediatric research. In: Children in Medical Research: Access versus Protection. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 87-103.
- 38. Dockett S, Einarsdottir J, Perry B. Young children’s decisions about research participation: Opting out. International Journal of Early Years Education. 2012;20(3):244-56.
- 39. Ries NM. Growing up as a research subject: ethical and legal issues in birth cohort studies involving genetic research. Health Law Journal. 2007;15:1.
- 40. Bennetts SK, Love J, Hackworth NJ, et al. Selective attrition in longitudinal studies: effective processes for Facebook tracing. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2021;24(2):135-47.
- 41. Gustavson K, von Soest T, Karevold E, Røysamb E. Attrition and generalizability in longitudinal studies: findings from a 15-year population-based study and a Monte Carlo simulation study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1-1.
- 42. Mein G, Johal S, Grant RL, Seale C, Ashcroft R, Tinker A. Predictors of two forms of attrition in a longitudinal health study involving ageing participants: an analysis based on the Whitehall II study. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2012;12(1):1-7..
- 43. Young AF, Powers JR, Bell SL. Attrition in longitudinal studies: who do you lose?. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2006;30(4):353-61.
- 44. Hens K, Van El CE, Borry P, et al. Developing a policy for paediatric biobanks: principles for good practice. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2013;21(1):2-7.
- 45. Wallace SE, Kirby E, Knoppers BM. How can we not waste legacy genomic research data?. Frontiers in Genetics. 2020;11:446.
- 46. Beauvais MJ, Knoppers BM. Coming out to play: privacy, data protection, children’s health, and COVID-19 research. Frontiers in Genetics. 2021;12:524.
- 47. Mascalzoni D, Dove ES, Rubinstein Y, et al. International Charter of principles for sharing bio-specimens and data. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2015;23(6):721-8.
- 48. Hens K, Cassiman JJ, Nys H, Dierickx K. Children, biobanks and the scope of parental consent. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2011;19(7):735-9.
- 49. Burke W, Diekema DS. Ethical issues arising from the participation of children in genetic research. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2006;149(1):S34-8.
- 50. Resnik DB. Re-consent upon reaching the age of majority: ethical issues. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practices. 2014;10:2.
- 51. The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Protocol. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2019.
- 52. McGill University Health Centre. Templates. Montreal, QC: The MUHC Centre for Applied Ethics; 2020.
- 53. Statistics Canada. Canadian COVID-19 Antibody and Health Survey (CCAHS). Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada; 2020.
- 54. Knoppers BM, Kekesi-Lafrance K. The genetic family as patient?. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2020;20(6):77-80.