The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
December 2012 (Volume 90)
December 2012 | Karin V. Rhodes, Franklin G. Miller
Context: In connection with health care reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a “mystery shopper,” or simulated patient study, to measure access to primary care. But the study was shelved because of public controversy over “government spying” on doctors. Opponents of the study also raised ethical concerns about the use of deception with human subjects without soliciting their informed consent.
Methods: We undertook an ethical analysis of the use of simulated patient techniques in health services research, with a particular focus on research measuring access to care. Using a case study, we explored relevant methodological considerations and ethical principles relating to deceptive research without informed consent, as well as U.S. federal regulations permitting exceptions to consent.
Findings: Several relevant considerations both favor and oppose soliciting consent for simulated patient studies. Making research participation conditional on informed consent protects the autonomy of research subjects and shields them from unreasonable exposure to research risks. However, scientific validity is also an important ethical principle of human subjects research, as the net risks to subjects must be justified by the value to society of the knowledge to be gained. The use of simulated patients to monitor access is a naturalistic and scientifically sound experimental design that can answer important policy-relevant questions, with minimal risks to human subjects. As interaction between researchers and subjects increases, however, so does the need for consent.
Conclusions: As long as adequate protections of confidentiality of research data are in place, minimally intrusive simulated patient research that gathers policy-relevant data on the health system without the consent of individuals working in that system can be ethically justified when the risks and burdens to research subjects are minimal and the research has the potential to generate socially valuable knowledge.
Author(s): Karin V. Rhodes and Franklin G. Miller
Keywords: research ethics, simulated patient studies, audit methodology, deceptive design, exceptions to consent, access to care, public health, health services
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 90, Issue 4 (pages 706–724)
Published in 2012
National Newspaper Portrayal of U.S. Nursing Homes: Periodic Treatment of Topic and Tone
Disclosure, Apology, and Offer Programs: Stakeholders’ Views of Barriers to and Strategies for Broad Implementation