The clinical investigator-subject relationship: a contextual approach
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The nature of the relationship between a clinical investigator and a research subject has generated considerable debate because the investigator occupies two distinct roles: clinician and scientist. As a clinician, the investigator has duties to provide the patient with optimal care and undivided loyalty. As a scientist, the investigator has duties to follow the rules, procedures and methods described in the protocol. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: In this article, I present a contextual approach to the investigator-subject relationship. The extent of the investigator's duty to provide the patient/subject with clinical care can vary from one situation to the next, as a function of several factors, including: the research design, benefits and risks of the research; the subject's reasonable expectations, motivations, and vulnerabilities; the investigator's ability to benefit the subject; and the investigator's prior relationship with the subject. These and other factors need to be considered when determining the clinical investigator's obligations to provide clinical care to human research subjects. In some research contexts, the investigator has extensive clinical obligations to the patient/subject; in others, the investigator has minimal ones.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In cases where technologies deployed to communities are taken away at the end of the study, distrust in researchers and hesitation to participate in future research is likely to occur among these participants.
“Likewise, in cases where technologies deployed to these communities are taken away from them at the end of the study, distrust in researchers and hesitation to participate in future research is likely to occur among these participants [85].”
From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [85]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 90 · Cited by 32
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Feinman J Law 101: Everything You Need to Know about the American Legal System 2000 New York: Oxford University Press
- Sample R Exploitation: What It Is and Why Its Wrong 2003 New York: Routledge
- Gert B Common Morality 2007 New York: Oxford University Press
- Weber W Pharmacogenetics 2008 New York: Oxford University Press
- Macklin R Against Relativism 1999 New York: Oxford University Press
- Authors
- Resnik, D. B.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Resnik, David B
- ORCID
- Resnik, David B
- Venue
- Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16
- ISSN
- 1747-5341 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2794289
- OpenAlex
- W2101599492
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
- Keywords
- research ethics
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Professional Role, Research Subjects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review