Literature DB >> 20711058

Temporal stability of receptiveness to clinical research on Alzheimer disease.

Jennifer Hagerty Lingler1, Daniel Rubin, Judith A Saxton.   

Abstract

Research advance directives are a proposed mechanism for ensuring that decisions with regard to research participation adhere to preferences voiced by persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) before losing decisional capacity. Although this approach rests on the assumption that preferences with regard to research participation are consistent over time, little is known about the stability of such preferences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the temporal stability of older adults' receptiveness to participation in clinical trials, neuroimaging studies, and psychosocial investigations on AD. One hundred and four participants in the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer Disease Research Center were annually surveyed with regard to their willingness to be contacted with regard to clinical drug trials, neuroimaging studies, and psychosocial research for which they might be eligible. Receptiveness to contact with regard to AD research was compared at 2 time points, 1 year apart. At baseline, most respondents were willing to be contacted with regard to their eligibility for drug trials, imaging studies, and psychosocial research. Thirty-seven percent of respondents voiced a different set of preferences at year 2 as compared with year 1. Differences included both increased and decreased willingness to be contacted. Neither stability of preferences nor direction of change (more vs. less willing) varied by diagnostic group. Bivariate analyses revealed that participation in at least 1 ancillary research study was associated with an overall increase in willingness to be contacted. We conclude that a significant proportion of research-friendly individuals voice different sets of preferences with regard to the possibility of research participation when queried at different points in time. Amenability to participating in clinical research on AD is a relatively dynamic personal attribute that may be influenced by personal experience with research participation. This finding has relevance for the policy debate around research advance directives, an approach which assumes that preferences with regard to research participation are consistent over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20711058      PMCID: PMC3087500          DOI: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181f14ac0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord        ISSN: 0893-0341            Impact factor:   2.703


  24 in total

1.  Alzheimer's disease patients' and caregivers' capacity, competency, and reasons to enroll in an early-phase Alzheimer's disease clinical trial.

Authors:  Jason H T Karlawish; David J Casarett; Bryan D James
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators.

Authors:  Jason H T Karlawish; David Knopman; Christopher M Clark; John C Morris; Daniel Marson; Peter J Whitehouse; Claudia H Kawas
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2002 Sep-Oct

3.  Advance directives in dementia research: promoting autonomy and protecting subjects.

Authors:  R Dresser
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb

4.  Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity--executive summary.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Int Bioethique       Date:  2002-03

Review 5.  Assessment of decision-making capacity in older adults: an emerging area of practice and research.

Authors:  Jennifer Moye; Daniel C Marson
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 4.077

6.  Speaking of research advance directives: planning for future research participation.

Authors:  C B Stocking; G W Hougham; D D Danner; M B Patterson; P J Whitehouse; G A Sachs
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2006-05-09       Impact factor: 9.910

7.  What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research?

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Colleen McCallum; Pierre N Tariot
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2005-11-08       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Barriers to obtaining consent in dementia research: implications for surrogate decision-making.

Authors:  S A Baskin; J Morris; J C Ahronheim; D E Meier; R S Morrison
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 5.562

9.  Prevalence and classification of mild cognitive impairment in the Cardiovascular Health Study Cognition Study: part 1.

Authors:  Oscar L Lopez; William J Jagust; Steven T DeKosky; James T Becker; Annette Fitzpatrick; Corinne Dulberg; John Breitner; Constantine Lyketsos; Beverly Jones; Claudia Kawas; Michelle Carlson; Lewis H Kuller
Journal:  Arch Neurol       Date:  2003-10

10.  Proxies and consent discussions for dementia research.

Authors:  Jeremy Sugarman; Debra Roter; Carole Cain; Roberta Wallace; Don Schmechel; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  6 in total

1.  Planning Ahead for Dementia Research Participation: Insights from a Survey of Older Australians and Implications for Ethics, Law and Practice.

Authors:  Nola Ries; Elise Mansfield; Rob Sanson-Fisher
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2019-07-11       Impact factor: 1.352

2.  Exploring the reasons urban and rural-dwelling older adults participate in memory research.

Authors:  Amanda Hunsaker; C Elizabeth Sarles; Daniel Rosen; Jennifer H Lingler; Marla Bonacile Johnson; Lisa Morrow; Judith Saxton
Journal:  Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen       Date:  2011-02-21       Impact factor: 2.035

3.  Willingness to Participate in Clinical Research Among Individuals With Cognitive Impairment.

Authors:  Mengchi Li; Hyejin Kim; Susan M Sereika; Trevor J Nissley; Jennifer H Lingler
Journal:  Res Gerontol Nurs       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 1.643

4.  Stability over time in the preferences of older persons for life-sustaining treatment.

Authors:  Ines M Barrio-Cantalejo; Pablo Simón-Lorda; Adoración Molina-Ruiz; Fátima Herrera-Ramos; Encarnación Martínez-Cruz; Rosa Maria Bailon-Gómez; Antonio López-Rico; Patricia Peinado Gorlat
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 1.352

5.  [Critical evaluation of the new legal regulation of pharmaceutical trials with adults who lack decision-making capacity: a survey of human research ethics committees in Germany].

Authors:  Sophie-Charlotte Götz; Georg Marckmann; Joerg Hasford; Ralf J Jox
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  I'd Do Anything for Research, But I Won't Do That: Interest in Pharmacological Interventions in Older Adults Enrolled in a Longitudinal Aging Study.

Authors:  Matthew Calamia; John P K Bernstein; Jeffrey N Keller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.