This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: I read with interest the Policy Perspectives article by Dr Moreno et al,¹ but I am concerned that the deliberations on this issue did not address the need to develop rules and procedures that, while protecting subjects, also allow the development of the relatively new field of primary care practice–based research.

Many, although certainly not all, primary care studies conducted in busy community practice settings are minimal risk and involve little or no intervention in patient care. Often they involve the collection of small amounts of data about a specific problem in a few patients in each practice. The practices are diverse and broadly distributed geographically, which is necessary if the research results are to be representative of primary care. Examples of these studies include mental health in children,² chest pain,³ panic disorder,⁴ asthma,⁵ neonatal jaundice,⁶ and a wide variety of other common primary care problems.

Current . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Updating Protections for Human Subjects Involved in Research
Jonathan Moreno, Arthur L. Caplan, Paul Root Wolpe, and and the Members of the Project on Informed Consent, Human Research Ethics Group
JAMA. 1998;280(22):1951-1958.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT