Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention

Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature r...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Rebers, Susanne [verfasserIn] Aaronson, Neil K. van Leeuwen, Flora E. Schmidt, Marjanka K.

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	Informed consent Consent waiver Research ethics

Anmerkung:	© Rebers et al. 2016

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: BMC medical ethics - London : BioMed Central, 2000, 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2016 ; number:1 ; day:06 ; month:02

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6

Katalog-ID:	SPR02819778X

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR02819778X
003	DE-627
005	20230519140709.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR02819778X
035			\|a (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Rebers, Susanne \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © Rebers et al. 2016
520			\|a Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB.
650		4	\|a Informed consent \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Consent waiver \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Research ethics \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Aaronson, Neil K. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a van Leeuwen, Flora E. \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Schmidt, Marjanka K. \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t BMC medical ethics \|d London : BioMed Central, 2000 \|g 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. \|w (DE-627)326645403 \|w (DE-600)2041552-7 \|x 1472-6939 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2016 \|g number:1 \|g day:06 \|g month:02
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 17 \|j 2016 \|e 1 \|b 06 \|c 02

Indexfelder

author_variant	s r sr n k a nk nka l f e v lfe lfev m k s mk mks
matchkey_str	article:14726939:2016----::xetosohrloifrecnetorsacw
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 doi (DE-627)SPR02819778X (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rebers, Susanne verfasserin aut Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Rebers et al. 2016 Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. Informed consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consent waiver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aaronson, Neil K. aut van Leeuwen, Flora E. aut Schmidt, Marjanka K. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 06 02
spelling	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 doi (DE-627)SPR02819778X (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rebers, Susanne verfasserin aut Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Rebers et al. 2016 Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. Informed consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consent waiver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aaronson, Neil K. aut van Leeuwen, Flora E. aut Schmidt, Marjanka K. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 06 02
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 doi (DE-627)SPR02819778X (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rebers, Susanne verfasserin aut Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Rebers et al. 2016 Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. Informed consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consent waiver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aaronson, Neil K. aut van Leeuwen, Flora E. aut Schmidt, Marjanka K. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 06 02
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 doi (DE-627)SPR02819778X (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rebers, Susanne verfasserin aut Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Rebers et al. 2016 Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. Informed consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consent waiver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aaronson, Neil K. aut van Leeuwen, Flora E. aut Schmidt, Marjanka K. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 06 02
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 doi (DE-627)SPR02819778X (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rebers, Susanne verfasserin aut Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Rebers et al. 2016 Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. Informed consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consent waiver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Aaronson, Neil K. aut van Leeuwen, Flora E. aut Schmidt, Marjanka K. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 06 02
language	English
source	Enthalten in BMC medical ethics 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02
sourceStr	Enthalten in BMC medical ethics 17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb. volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:06 month:02
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Informed consent Consent waiver Research ethics
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC medical ethics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Rebers, Susanne @@aut@@ Aaronson, Neil K. @@aut@@ van Leeuwen, Flora E. @@aut@@ Schmidt, Marjanka K. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-02-06T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326645403
id	SPR02819778X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR02819778X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519140709.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR02819778X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rebers, Susanne</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Rebers et al. 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Informed consent</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consent waiver</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Research ethics</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aaronson, Neil K.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van Leeuwen, Flora E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schmidt, Marjanka K.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326645403</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041552-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6939</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Rebers, Susanne
spellingShingle	Rebers, Susanne misc Informed consent misc Consent waiver misc Research ethics Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
authorStr	Rebers, Susanne
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326645403
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1472-6939
topic_title	Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention Informed consent (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consent waiver (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Informed consent misc Consent waiver misc Research ethics
topic_unstemmed	misc Informed consent misc Consent waiver misc Research ethics
topic_browse	misc Informed consent misc Consent waiver misc Research ethics
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC medical ethics
hierarchy_parent_id	326645403
hierarchy_top_title	BMC medical ethics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7
title	Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR02819778X (SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e
title_full	Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
author_sort	Rebers, Susanne
journal	BMC medical ethics
journalStr	BMC medical ethics
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Rebers, Susanne Aaronson, Neil K. van Leeuwen, Flora E. Schmidt, Marjanka K.
container_volume	17
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Rebers, Susanne
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6
title_sort	exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
title_auth	Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
abstract	Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. © Rebers et al. 2016
abstractGer	Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. © Rebers et al. 2016
abstract_unstemmed	Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. © Rebers et al. 2016
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6
remote_bool	true
author2	Aaronson, Neil K. van Leeuwen, Flora E. Schmidt, Marjanka K.
author2Str	Aaronson, Neil K. van Leeuwen, Flora E. Schmidt, Marjanka K.
ppnlink	326645403
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6
up_date	2024-07-03T17:54:14.922Z
_version_	1803581396010139648
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR02819778X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519140709.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR02819778X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12910-016-0092-6-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rebers, Susanne</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Rebers et al. 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Methods Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. Results We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. Conclusions The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Informed consent</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consent waiver</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Research ethics</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aaronson, Neil K.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van Leeuwen, Flora E.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schmidt, Marjanka K.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2016), 1 vom: 06. Feb.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326645403</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041552-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6939</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398756

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?