OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether different methods of obtaining informed consent affected recruitment to a study of delirium in older, medically ill hospital inpatients. DESIGN: Open randomised study. SETTING: Acute medical service for older people in an inner city teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 70 years or older admitted to the unit within three days of hospital admission randomised into two groups. INTERVENTION: Attempted recruitment of subjects to a study of the natural history of delirium. This was done by either (a) a formal test of capacity, followed by either a request for consent or an attempt at obtaining assent from a proxy, or (b) a combined informal capacity/consent process. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and severity of delirium, and, as case mix measures, length of hospital stay and destination on discharge. RESULTS: Recruitment of subjects through establishing formal capacity and then informed consent was less successful (43.9% v 74% of those approached) and, compared with those recruited through the usual combined capacity/consent approach, yielded a sample with less cognitive impairment, lower severity of delirium, lower probability of case note diagnosis of delirium and lower rate of entering a care home. CONCLUSIONS: Methods of obtaining informed consent may significantly influence the case mix of subjects recruited to a study of delirium. Stringent testing of capacity may exclude patients with delirium from studies, thus rendering findings less generalizable. A different method is necessary to achieve an ethical balance between respecting autonomy through obtaining adequate informed consent and avoiding sample bias.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether different methods of obtaining informed consent affected recruitment to a study of delirium in older, medically ill hospital inpatients. DESIGN: Open randomised study. SETTING: Acute medical service for older people in an inner city teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 70 years or older admitted to the unit within three days of hospital admission randomised into two groups. INTERVENTION: Attempted recruitment of subjects to a study of the natural history of delirium. This was done by either (a) a formal test of capacity, followed by either a request for consent or an attempt at obtaining assent from a proxy, or (b) a combined informal capacity/consent process. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and severity of delirium, and, as case mix measures, length of hospital stay and destination on discharge. RESULTS: Recruitment of subjects through establishing formal capacity and then informed consent was less successful (43.9% v 74% of those approached) and, compared with those recruited through the usual combined capacity/consent approach, yielded a sample with less cognitive impairment, lower severity of delirium, lower probability of case note diagnosis of delirium and lower rate of entering a care home. CONCLUSIONS: Methods of obtaining informed consent may significantly influence the case mix of subjects recruited to a study of delirium. Stringent testing of capacity may exclude patients with delirium from studies, thus rendering findings less generalizable. A different method is necessary to achieve an ethical balance between respecting autonomy through obtaining adequate informed consent and avoiding sample bias.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: S K Inouye; S T Bogardus; P A Charpentier; L Leo-Summers; D Acampora; T R Holford; L M Cooney Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisa Sweet; Dimitrios Adamis; David J Meagher; Daniel Davis; David C Currow; Shirley H Bush; Christopher Barnes; Michael Hartwick; Meera Agar; Jessica Simon; William Breitbart; Neil MacDonald; Peter G Lawlor Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Lona Mody; Douglas K Miller; Joanne M McGloin; Marcie Freeman; Edward R Marcantonio; Jay Magaziner; Stephanie Studenski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: C J Evans; E Yorganci; P Lewis; J Koffman; K Stone; I Tunnard; B Wee; W Bernal; M Hotopf; I J Higginson Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: John Williams; Karen Finn; Vincent Melvin; David Meagher; Geraldine McCarthy; Dimitrios Adamis Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 3.411