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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current controlled trials in cardiovascular medicine Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 649 - 2
Main Authors: Al, Pepijn, Brehaut, Jamie, Weijer, Charles
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: London BioMed Central 06.10.2023
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Subjects:
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
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography: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