The Ubiquity and Utility of the Therapeutic Misconception

Abstract

The term “therapeutic misconception” was coined in 1982 by Paul Appelbaum, Loren Roth, and Charles Lidz. Appelbaum and his colleagues interviewed participants in several psychiatric studies, including a drug trial with a placebo control arm. Appelbaum's group found that many people were unaware of the differences between participating in a study and receiving treatment in the clinical setting. Rather than understanding these differences, study participants tended to believe that therapy and research were governed by the same primary goal: to advance the individual patient's best interests. Appelbaum's group labeled this mistaken belief the therapeutic misconception.

The Failure of Mandated Disclosures, part 3

“…1578, 1581] (отмечается, что в телепередачах «всего 28 % пациентов имели первичную остановку сердца», тогда как в реальности от «75 до 95 % случаев остановки сердца происходит на фоне сердечного заболевания»); ср. [169] (дока-зывается, что участники исследований «путают исследование с лечением» не только из-за неправильно составленных форм информированного согласия, но потому, что «пациенты посто-янно получают сообщения, в которых участие в исследовании приравнивается к медицинскому обслуживанию»). что такое амортизация и как она влияет на выплаты, из-за чего даже самое упрощенное объяснение систе-мы расчета платежей и колебаний процентной ставки становится проблематичным.…”

Giving Voice to Research Participants: Should IRBs Hear From Research Participant Representatives?

“…Consider the example of a study that employs a consent process which promotes therapeutic misconception (Dresser, 2002) on the part of participants. Participants who would not have enrolled in the research had they been properly informed that no benefits would actually accrue to them are unlikely to view their right of refusal to be meaningful.…”

Clinical Trials in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury: Unique Challenges and Potential Responses

“…To lessen this burden, pediatric intensivists who provide clinical care may be asked to assist with recruitment. However, this practice increases the likelihood of therapeutic misconception if families believe enrollment in the trial is being recommended in order to improve their child's care [38][39][40] . Even if families fully understand the experimental nature of the proposed research, it is also possible that they will find it harder to refuse consent requested by a physician providing needed care to their critically injured child, despite standard consent language assuring that there are no negative consequences for refusal.…”