Literature DB >> 18657248

Appreciation of research information in patients with bipolar disorder.

Sahana Misra1, Robert Socherman, Peter Hauser, Linda Ganzini.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Ethicists have debated whether patients with serious mental illness can appreciate the risks of research participation and make autonomous decisions. We compared the abilities of euthymic and manic bipolar patients to appreciate and make voluntary decisions regarding research participation.
METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with mania and 25 euthymic subjects reviewed hypothetical consent forms for three research studies of varying risk. We assessed subjects' appreciation of: their diagnosis and need for treatment; the researcher's role; the risks of participation; and the degree of influence of family, the treating clinician, and payment on decisions to participate.
RESULTS: Most subjects (92%) agreed they had bipolar disorder requiring medication treatment. Subjects were less likely to participate in riskier studies. About half of subjects erroneously believed that researchers would make decisions based solely on what would be the best care for them (therapeutic misconception); and in randomized medication trials, they mistakenly believed they had improved chances of receiving one treatment over another. There were no differences between mood groups on these measures. Over half of subjects (59%) indicated that their mental health provider might influence them to participate in a study even when they did not want to, but most rejected a role for family in decision making. Payment was rated as having little impact on decisions to participate in research.
CONCLUSION: Mania does not substantially influence appreciation of research participation. Subjects with bipolar disorder, regardless of mood state, are at risk for therapeutic misconception and optimistic bias. Special protections may be needed when mental health professionals approach their own patients to participate in research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18657248     DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2008.00609.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bipolar Disord        ISSN: 1398-5647            Impact factor:   6.744


  6 in total

1.  The Ethics of Clinical Trials Research in Severe Mood Disorders.

Authors:  Allison C Nugent; Franklin G Miller; Ioline D Henter; Carlos A Zarate
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 1.898

2.  Participants' Perceptions of Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Risks, Benefits, and Therapeutic Misconception.

Authors:  Yan Leykin; Paul P Christopher; Paul E Holtzheimer; Paul S Appelbaum; Helen S Mayberg; Sarah H Lisanby; Laura B Dunn
Journal:  AJOB Prim Res       Date:  2011-10

Review 3.  Research ethics issues in geriatric psychiatry.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Sahana Misra
Journal:  Psychiatr Clin North Am       Date:  2009-06

Review 4.  Informed consent and biological agents in rheumatology and internal medicine.

Authors:  Gabriele Mandarelli; Florenzo Iannone; Stefano Ferracuti; Ignazio Grattagliano; Marcello Benevento; Biagio Solarino; Davide Ferorelli; Roberto Catanesi
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 5.722

Review 5.  Reflections on translation: Views of participants in a multisite Canadian CCSVI clinical trial.

Authors:  Shelly Benjaminy; Cody Lo; Judy Illes; Anthony Traboulsee
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2018-06

Review 6.  Use of next generation sequencing technologies in research and beyond: are participants with mental health disorders fully protected?

Authors:  Iris Jaitovich Groisman; Ghislaine Mathieu; Beatrice Godard
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 2.652

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.