Developing product label information to support evidence-informed use of vaccines in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Product labelling information describing the use of vaccines in pregnancy continues to contain cautionary language even after clinical and epidemiological evidence of safety becomes available. This language raises safety concerns among healthcare providers who may hesitate to recommend vaccines during pregnancy. PURPOSE: To develop clear evidence-based language about vaccine safety and effectiveness in pregnancy for inclusion in vaccine product labels. METHODS: We conducted a three-stage consensus-methods project with stakeholders, including: healthcare providers, vaccine regulators, industry representatives, and experts in public health, communication, law, ethics, and social sciences. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, we held a nominal group technique (NGT) meeting, followed by a Delphi survey, and then a consensus workshop with a subset of Delphi participants. We developed a methodological tool to analyse data for consensus. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: Stakeholders (N = 14) at the NGT meeting drafted product label statements for evaluation in the Delphi survey. Survey participants (N = 41) provided feedback on statements for five hypothetical vaccines. Workshop participants (N = 27) initiated discussions that demonstrated a lack of awareness that the regulatory purpose of product labels is to provide a scientific summary of product-specific pre-clinical and clinical trial data. Each stage of this project built on earlier stages until we achieved strong consensus on the language, structure, and types of data that stakeholders wanted to include in inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine product labels in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The revised statements for IIV and Tdap aligned with workshop participants' goals that the product label be evidence-based, with a consistent structure and language that is easily understood by healthcare providers. Emergent methods uncovered stakeholder concerns about the regulatory purpose, content, and evidence used in product labels. Involving healthcare providers in the development and regular updating of product information could prevent interpretations of that information that contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

The therapeutic misconception: a threat to valid parental consent for pediatric neuroimaging research.

Neuroimaging research has brought major advances to child health and wellbeing. However, because of the vulnerabilities associated with neurological and developmental conditions, the parental need for hope, and the expectation of parents that new medical advances can benefit their child, pediatric neuroimaging research presents significant challenges to the general problem of consent in the context of research involving children. A particular challenge in this domain is created by the presence of therapeutic misconception on the part of parents and other key research stakeholders. This article revierws the concept of therapeutic misconception and its role in pediatric neuroimaging research. It argues that this misconception can compromise consent given by parents for the involvement of their children in research as healthy controls or as persons with neurological and developmental conditions. The article further contends that therapeutic misconception can undermine the research ethics review process for proposed and ongoing neuroimaging studies. Against this backdrop, the article concludes with recommendations for mitigating the effects of therapeutic misconception in pediatric neuroimaging research.

Giving voice to research participants: should IRBs hear from research participant representatives?

The current decision-making model for the review of human research contains inadequate mechanisms to ensure that the interests and perspectives of research participants are considered by Institutional Review Boards, whose decisions may profoundly affect the safety and well-being of participants. As a result, this model is far from being optimized to realize Institutional Review Boards' principal mandate and undermines the credibility of the research review process. This article proposes a procedural mechanism that would ameliorate these systemic deficiencies by allowing "research participant representatives" to give voice to participants during the research review process.