Literature DB >> 16254062

Willingness of subjects with thought disorder to participate in research.

Philip J Candilis1, Cynthia M A Geppert, Kenneth E Fletcher, Charles W Lidz, Paul S Appelbaum.   

Abstract

Greater attention is being focused on the willingness and motivations of potential subjects who are recruited for research protocols. Given the importance of subjects' abilities to choose freely and reason through their decisions about entering psychiatric research, empirical researchers have been developing assessment and education tools that address the potential vulnerabilities of research subjects. In this study subjects' responses and reasons for or against participation were elicited as part of an assessment of their research decision making. Fifty-two persons diagnosed with a thought disorder were asked to consider a hypothetical research study using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR). Their responses were documented, coded for content, and correlated with demographic characteristics and scores on scales rating psychosis, cognition, and health-related quality of life. Subjects expressed common considerations that have been identified by other psychiatric investigators, as well as by those studying nonpsychiatric protocols. In general, reasons were both appropriate to the study being considered and appropriately linked to common considerations that flowed logically from the study. However, elements of the therapeutic misconception were evident as well. Willingness to participate was correlated with higher MacCAT-CR scores on certain scales, better education, and lower levels of psychosis and cognitive impairment. These findings highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the decision making of research subjects with thought disorder. Research protections and assessments may consequently be appropriately targeted to specific vulnerabilities. Because of differences in severity of illness, cognition, and reasoning among subjects who decline to participate in research, greater attention to this population appears warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16254062      PMCID: PMC2632177          DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbj016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Schizophr Bull        ISSN: 0586-7614            Impact factor:   9.306


  20 in total

1.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.

Authors:  M F Folstein; S E Folstein; P R McHugh
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  1975-11       Impact factor: 4.791

2.  Therapeutic misconception in clinical research: frequency and risk factors.

Authors:  Paul S Appelbaum; Charles W Lidz; Thomas Grisso
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2004 Mar-Apr

3.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 4.  The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals.

Authors:  S J Edwards; R J Lilford; J Hewison
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-31

5.  The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia.

Authors:  S R Kay; A Fiszbein; L A Opler
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 9.306

6.  Attitudes toward clinical trials among patients and the public.

Authors:  B R Cassileth; E J Lusk; D S Miller; S Hurwitz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-08-27       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment.

Authors:  L B Dunn; D V Jeste
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 7.853

8.  Attitude towards clinical trials: results of a survey of persons interested in research.

Authors:  C Ohmann; A Deimling
Journal:  Inflamm Res       Date:  2004-08-10       Impact factor: 4.575

9.  Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials.

Authors:  C Daugherty; M J Ratain; E Grochowski; C Stocking; E Kodish; R Mick; M Siegler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Preliminary findings on psychiatric patients as research participants: a population at risk?

Authors:  B Stanley; M Stanley; A Lautin; J Kane; N Schwartz
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1981-05       Impact factor: 18.112

View more
  16 in total

1.  Capacity to make medical treatment decisions in multiple sclerosis: a potentially remediable deficit.

Authors:  Michael R Basso; Philip J Candilis; Jay Johnson; Courtney Ghormley; Dennis R Combs; Taeh Ward
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.475

Review 2.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

3.  A direct comparison of research decision-making capacity: schizophrenia/schizoaffective, medically ill, and non-ill subjects.

Authors:  Philip J Candilis; Kenneth E Fletcher; Cynthia M A Geppert; Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.939

4.  Addressing risks to advance mental health research.

Authors:  Ana S Iltis; Sahana Misra; Laura B Dunn; Gregory K Brown; Amy Campbell; Sarah A Earll; Anne Glowinski; Whitney B Hadley; Ronald Pies; James M Dubois
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 21.596

5.  Attitudes of patients with schizophrenia and depression to psychiatric research: a study in seven European countries.

Authors:  Ingo Schäfer; Tom Burns; W Wolfgang Fleischhacker; Silvana Galderisi; Janusz K Rybakowski; Jan Libiger; Wulf Rössler; Andrew Molodynski; Monika Edlinger; Giuseppe Piegari; Jela Hrnčiarova; Krystyna Gorna; Matthias Jaeger; Anne-Kathrin Fett; Johanna Hissbach; Dieter Naber
Journal:  Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol       Date:  2010-02-02       Impact factor: 4.328

6.  Competing for patients: an ethical framework for recruiting patients with brain tumors into clinical trials.

Authors:  George M Ibrahim; Caroline Chung; Mark Bernstein
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Shared Genetic Loci Between Body Mass Index and Major Psychiatric Disorders: A Genome-wide Association Study.

Authors:  Shahram Bahrami; Nils Eiel Steen; Alexey Shadrin; Kevin O'Connell; Oleksandr Frei; Francesco Bettella; Katrine V Wirgenes; Florian Krull; Chun C Fan; Anders M Dale; Olav B Smeland; Srdjan Djurovic; Ole A Andreassen
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 21.596

8.  Improving recruitment in clinical trials: why eligible participants decline.

Authors:  Julie Brintnall-Karabelas; Susanna Sung; Mary Ellen Cadman; Carol Squires; Katherine Whorton; Maryland Pao
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Ethics in Psychiatric Research: A Review of 25 Years of NIH-funded Empirical Research Projects.

Authors:  James Dubois; Holly Bante; Whitney B Hadley
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2011-12-06

10.  Worth the risk? Relationship of incentives to risk and benefit perceptions and willingness to participate in schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Daniel S Kim; Ian E Fellows; Barton W Palmer
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 9.306

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.