Literature DB >> 21460586

Assessment of consent capability in psychiatric and medical studies.

Raymond C Tait1, John T Chibnall, Ana Iltis, Anji Wall, Teresa L Deshields.   

Abstract

In order to evaluate psychiatric factors that potentially influence assessment of consent capacity, 195 IRB members read summaries of hypothetical medical (cancer vs. neuropathic pain) and psychiatric trials. They then rated research participants' capacity for consent (capable or not capable), autonomy, and decisional abilities, as well as the legal risk to the institution of the study. Levels of depression information varied across the medical disorders. Significantly fewer IRB members judged participants in the depression trial to possess adequate capacity for consent relative to 4 of 6 medical conditions; legal risk to the institution also was rated higher in the psychiatric study. While IRB members judged participants in depression trials to have less capacity for consent and to pose higher levels of institutional risk than medical trial participants, the addition of increasing information regarding depressive co-morbidities had little or no effect on judgments of medical studies. Implications are discussed relative to the apparent overprotection of participants in psychiatric trials and underprotection of those in medical trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21460586      PMCID: PMC3222295          DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.39

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  23 in total

1.  Burden of disease--implications for future research.

Authors:  C M Michaud; C J Murray; B R Bloom
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-02-07       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Phase I cancer trials: a crucible of competing priorities.

Authors:  M Miller
Journal:  Int Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  2001

Review 3.  Informed consent and the capacity for voluntarism.

Authors:  Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 18.112

4.  Insights pertaining to patient assessments of states worse than death.

Authors:  R A Pearlman; K C Cain; D L Patrick; M Appelbaum-Maizel; H E Starks; N S Jecker; R F Uhlmann
Journal:  J Clin Ethics       Date:  1993

5.  Protection of persons with mental disorders from research risk: a response to the report of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

Authors:  J M Oldham; S Haimowitz; S J Delano
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1999-08

6.  Pain and the choice to hasten death in patients with painful metastatic cancer.

Authors:  M Sullivan; S Rapp; D Fitzgibbon; C R Chapman
Journal:  J Palliat Care       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.250

7.  The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  IRB Member Judgments of Decisional Capacity, Coercion, and Risk in Medical and Psychiatric Studies.

Authors:  Rebecca Luebbert; Raymond C Tait; John T Chibnall; Teresa L Deshields
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  Assessing patients' capacities to consent to treatment.

Authors:  P S Appelbaum; T Grisso
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-12-22       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Understanding and influencing the stigma of mental illness.

Authors:  Patrick W Corrigan; Abigail Wassel
Journal:  J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.098

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  The "Vulnerability" of Psychiatric Research Participants: Why This Research Ethics Concept Needs to Be Revisited.

Authors:  Dearbhail Bracken-Roche; Emily Bell; Eric Racine
Journal:  Can J Psychiatry       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 4.356

2.  Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 3.057

3.  Applying Genetic and Genomic Tools to Psychiatric Disorders: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ana S IItis; Akaya Lewis; Sarah Neely; Stephannie Walker Seaton; Sarah H Jeong
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2021-11-30
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.