OBJECTIVE: A central ethical issue in schizophrenia research is whether participants are able to provide informed consent, particularly for protocols entailing medication washouts or placebo treatments. Few data show how patients with schizophrenia and psychiatrists assess such scientific designs regarding potential harm, willingness to participate, and the relative influence of clinicians, family members, and financial incentives upon participation decisions. METHOD: In this preliminary study, structured interviews were conducted with schizophrenia patients (N=59), and parallel surveys were completed by attending and resident psychiatrists (N=70). Four hypothetical research protocols were rated. Patients were asked about their own views; psychiatrists provided both their personal views and predictions of patient views. RESULTS: Patients and psychiatrists both perceived substantially different levels of harm across the four protocols, identifying significantly greater harm for medication washouts or placebo treatments. Participants were less willing to enroll in protocols perceived as more harmful. Schizophrenia patients found enrollment decisions relatively easy. Patients and psychiatrists indicated that doctor recommendations, monetary incentives, and, to a lesser extent, family preferences had a mild influence on participation decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Given hypothetical protocols with variable design elements, schizophrenia patients and psychiatrists made meaningful and discerning harm assessments and participation decisions. These findings suggest that schizophrenia patients may have strengths in the research consent process that may not be fully recognized. The impact of outside influences upon research enrollment decisions remains uncertain. While psychiatrists were often accurate in predicting patient responses, data suggest the importance of clarifying views of individual patients regarding specific protocols.
OBJECTIVE: A central ethical issue in schizophrenia research is whether participants are able to provide informed consent, particularly for protocols entailing medication washouts or placebo treatments. Few data show how patients with schizophrenia and psychiatrists assess such scientific designs regarding potential harm, willingness to participate, and the relative influence of clinicians, family members, and financial incentives upon participation decisions. METHOD: In this preliminary study, structured interviews were conducted with schizophreniapatients (N=59), and parallel surveys were completed by attending and resident psychiatrists (N=70). Four hypothetical research protocols were rated. Patients were asked about their own views; psychiatrists provided both their personal views and predictions of patient views. RESULTS:Patients and psychiatrists both perceived substantially different levels of harm across the four protocols, identifying significantly greater harm for medication washouts or placebo treatments. Participants were less willing to enroll in protocols perceived as more harmful. Schizophreniapatients found enrollment decisions relatively easy. Patients and psychiatrists indicated that doctor recommendations, monetary incentives, and, to a lesser extent, family preferences had a mild influence on participation decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Given hypothetical protocols with variable design elements, schizophreniapatients and psychiatrists made meaningful and discerning harm assessments and participation decisions. These findings suggest that schizophreniapatients may have strengths in the research consent process that may not be fully recognized. The impact of outside influences upon research enrollment decisions remains uncertain. While psychiatrists were often accurate in predicting patient responses, data suggest the importance of clarifying views of individual patients regarding specific protocols.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; Mental Health Therapies
Authors: Philip J Candilis; Cynthia M A Geppert; Kenneth E Fletcher; Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2005-10-27 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Katherine E McDonald; Nicole M Schwartz; Colleen M Gibbons; Robert S Olick Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: James M Dubois; Kelly Carroll; Tyler Gibb; Elena Kraus; Timothy Rubbelke; Meghan Vasher; Emily E Anderson Journal: Ethics Behav Date: 2011-11-29