OBJECTIVE: To assess the informed, deliberative views of the older general public toward a policy of allowing surrogate consent for Alzheimer disease (AD) research. METHODS: A total of 503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after deliberation session (or equivalent time), and 1 month after the session, regarding their attitudes toward a policy of allowing surrogate consent for research studies of varying risks and potential benefits (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial). RESULTS: At baseline, a policy of surrogate consent for AD research was supported by 55%-91%, depending on the scenario. The education group had a transient increase in support for one research scenario after receiving the information materials. In the deliberation group, support for surrogate consent was higher after deliberation for all scenarios (67% to 97%), with much of the increase sustained 1 month after the deliberation session. No changes occurred in the control group. The study's limitations include self-selection of participants due to the demanding nature of attendance at the deliberation sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This sample of the older general public generally supported a policy of surrogate consent for AD research at baseline. Their support increased with democratic deliberation involving informed, in-depth exploration of the relevant scientific and ethical issues.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the informed, deliberative views of the older general public toward a policy of allowing surrogate consent for Alzheimer disease (AD) research. METHODS: A total of 503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after deliberation session (or equivalent time), and 1 month after the session, regarding their attitudes toward a policy of allowing surrogate consent for research studies of varying risks and potential benefits (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial). RESULTS: At baseline, a policy of surrogate consent for AD research was supported by 55%-91%, depending on the scenario. The education group had a transient increase in support for one research scenario after receiving the information materials. In the deliberation group, support for surrogate consent was higher after deliberation for all scenarios (67% to 97%), with much of the increase sustained 1 month after the deliberation session. No changes occurred in the control group. The study's limitations include self-selection of participants due to the demanding nature of attendance at the deliberation sessions. CONCLUSIONS: This sample of the older general public generally supported a policy of surrogate consent for AD research at baseline. Their support increased with democratic deliberation involving informed, in-depth exploration of the relevant scientific and ethical issues.
Authors: J-M Orgogozo; S Gilman; J-F Dartigues; B Laurent; M Puel; L C Kirby; P Jouanny; B Dubois; L Eisner; S Flitman; B F Michel; M Boada; A Frank; C Hock Journal: Neurology Date: 2003-07-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Scott Y H Kim; Rebecca A Uhlmann; Paul S Appelbaum; David S Knopman; H Myra Kim; Laura Damschroder; Elizabeth Beattie; Laura Struble; Raymond De Vries Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-02-26 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Mark H Tuszynski; Leon Thal; Mary Pay; David P Salmon; Hoi Sang U; Roy Bakay; Piyush Patel; Armin Blesch; H Lee Vahlsing; Gilbert Ho; Gang Tong; Steven G Potkin; James Fallon; Lawrence Hansen; Elliott J Mufson; Jeffrey H Kordower; Christine Gall; James Conner Journal: Nat Med Date: 2005-04-24 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: O Okonkwo; H R Griffith; K Belue; S Lanza; E Y Zamrini; L E Harrell; J C Brockington; D Clark; R Raman; D C Marson Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-10-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Tom Tomlinson; Raymond G De Vries; H Myra Kim; Linda Gordon; Kerry A Ryan; Chris D Krenz; Scott Jewell; Scott Y H Kim Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Michele Gornick; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Angela R Bradbury Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-10-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michele C Gornick; Aaron M Scherer; Erica J Sutton; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole L Exe; Ming Li; Wendy R Uhlmann; Scott Y H Kim; J Scott Roberts; Raymond G De Vries Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Raymond De Vries; Kerry A Ryan; Aimee Stanczyk; Paul S Appelbaum; Laura Damschroder; David S Knopman; Scott Y H Kim Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 4.105
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