Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026

An Affordable HIV-1 Drug Resistance Monitoring Method for Resource Limited Settings
Published on: March 30, 2014
Relative versus absolute standards for everyday risk in adolescent HIV prevention trials: expanding the debate
Jeremy Snyder1, Cari L Miller, Glenda Gray
1Snyder, Simon Fraser University, Health Sciences, 8888 University Drive, Blusson Hall 11300, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6, Canada. jcs12@sfu.ca
Abstract:
The concept of minimal risk has been used to regulate and limit participation by adolescents in clinical trials. It can be understood as setting an absolute standard of what risks are considered minimal or it can be interpreted as relative to the actual risks faced by members of the host community for the trial. While commentators have almost universally opposed a relative interpretation of the environmental risks faced by potential adolescent trial participants, we argue that the ethical concerns against the relative standard may not be as convincing as these commentators believe. Our aim is to present the case for a relative standard of environmental risk in order to open a debate on this subject. We conclude by discussing how a relative standard of environmental risk could be defended in the specific case of an HIV vaccine trial among adolescents in South Africa.
Related Concept Videos
Relative Risk
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...

