Betty S Black1, Malory Wechsler, Linda Fogarty. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: bblack@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the decision-making process used by individuals asked to participate in dementia research and their opinions on how future proxy research decisions would or should be made, including participants' preferred ethical standards for decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative methods. SETTING: University research institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Informants were 39 of 46 individuals with cognitive impairment (i.e., subjects) who were asked to join one of six dementia studies and 46 study partners or surrogate decision makers. MEASUREMENTS: Semistructured individual interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for content analysis. RESULTS: Within dyads, subjects and surrogates often differed in their perspectives on how decisions were made regarding whether to join a study, and no single method was identified as a predominant approach. Although there was only fair agreement within dyads on who ultimately made the decision, subjects and surrogates most often said it was the subject. For future proxy research decisions, subjects and surrogates most often preferred the ethical standard of best interests and least often favored substituted judgment. However, many participants preferred a combination of best interests and substituted judgment or a more complex approach that also considers the interests of others. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with mild to moderate cognitive impairment can and do engage to some extent in the decision-making process for dementia research and can discuss their opinions on how they would want such decisions made for them in the future. These findings support the recommended approach for obtaining proxy consent and subject assent if the individual lacks consent capacity.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the decision-making process used by individuals asked to participate in dementia research and their opinions on how future proxy research decisions would or should be made, including participants' preferred ethical standards for decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative methods. SETTING: University research institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Informants were 39 of 46 individuals with cognitive impairment (i.e., subjects) who were asked to join one of six dementia studies and 46 study partners or surrogate decision makers. MEASUREMENTS: Semistructured individual interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for content analysis. RESULTS: Within dyads, subjects and surrogates often differed in their perspectives on how decisions were made regarding whether to join a study, and no single method was identified as a predominant approach. Although there was only fair agreement within dyads on who ultimately made the decision, subjects and surrogates most often said it was the subject. For future proxy research decisions, subjects and surrogates most often preferred the ethical standard of best interests and least often favored substituted judgment. However, many participants preferred a combination of best interests and substituted judgment or a more complex approach that also considers the interests of others. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with mild to moderate cognitive impairment can and do engage to some extent in the decision-making process for dementia research and can discuss their opinions on how they would want such decisions made for them in the future. These findings support the recommended approach for obtaining proxy consent and subject assent if the individual lacks consent capacity.
Authors: Betty Smith Black; Judith Kasper; Jason Brandt; Andrew D Shore; Pearl German; Lynda Burton; Joseph J Gallo; Constantine Lyketsos; Peter V Rabins Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2003 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Lon S Schneider; M Saleem Ismail; Karen Dagerman; Sonia Davis; Jason Olin; Dennis McManus; Eric Pfeiffer; J Michael Ryan; David L Sultzer; Pierre N Tariot Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2003 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Sheryl Zimmerman; Philip D Sloane; Christianna S Williams; Peter S Reed; John S Preisser; J Kevin Eckert; Malaz Boustani; Debra Dobbs Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2005-10
Authors: Clark Benson; Amanda Friz; Shannon Mullen; Laura Block; Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Andrea Pace; Johan A F Koekkoek; Martin J van den Bent; Helen J Bulbeck; Jane Fleming; Robin Grant; Heidrun Golla; Roger Henriksson; Simon Kerrigan; Christine Marosi; Ingela Oberg; Stefan Oberndorfer; Kathy Oliver; H Roeline W Pasman; Emilie Le Rhun; Alasdair G Rooney; Roberta Rudà; Simone Veronese; Tobias Walbert; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Martin J B Taphoorn; Linda Dirven Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-07-16