Response to Merz

Jon Merz raises two objections to our article on the ethics of behavioral influences in trial recruitment. In this response, we defend our article against these objections. We argue that Merz’s critique rests on a misunderstanding of our article, defend the daily life standard as a guardrail for lev...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine Ročník 24; číslo 1; s. 649 - 2
Hlavní autoři: Al, Pepijn, Brehaut, Jamie, Weijer, Charles
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: London BioMed Central 06.10.2023
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Témata:
Biomedicine
Clinical trials
Decision making
Health Sciences
Influence
Letter
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Participation
Research ethics
Statistics for Life Sciences
ISSN:1745-6215, 1745-6215
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Jon Merz raises two objections to our article on the ethics of behavioral influences in trial recruitment. In this response, we defend our article against these objections. We argue that Merz’s critique rests on a misunderstanding of our article, defend the daily life standard as a guardrail for leveraging cognitive biases, and argue that rejecting all behavioral influences is not a helpful nor a sustainable answer to their increasing use in trial recruitment.
Bibliografie:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Correspondence-1
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1745-6215
1745-6215
DOI:10.1186/s13063-023-07693-3