Literature DB >> 26752784

Perspectives of Decisional Surrogates and Patients Regarding Critical Illness Genetic Research.

Bradley D Freeman1, Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic2, Carie R Kennedy1, Jessica LeBlanc2, Alexander Eastman3, Jennifer Barillas3, Catherine M Wittgen4, Kathryn Indsey4, Rumel S Mahmood2, Brian R Clarridge2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Critical illness research is challenging due to disease severity and because patients are frequently incapacitated. Surrogates called upon to provide consent might not accurately represent patient preferences. Though commonplace, genetic data collection adds complexity in this context. We undertook this investigation to understand whether surrogate decision makers would be receptive to permitting participation in a critical illness genetics study and whether their decision making was consistent with that of the patient represented.
METHODS: We invited individuals identified as surrogates for critically ill adults, if required, as well as patients once recovered to participate in a survey designed to understand attitudes about genetic research. Associations between dependent (receptivity to participation, concordance of responses) and independent variables were tested using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Most of the entire surrogate sample (n=439) reported familiarity with research, including genetic research; tended to view research as useful; and were receptive to allowing their family member participate (with 39.6% and 38.1% stating that this would be "very" and "somewhat likely," respectively) even absent direct benefit. Willingness to participate was similar comparing genetic and non-genetic studies (χ2 [1,n=439]=0.00127, p=0.972), though respondents expressed worry regarding lack of confidentiality of genetic data. Responses were concordant in 70.8% of the 192 surrogate-patient pairs analyzed. In multivariate analysis, African American race was associated with less receptivity to genetic data collection (p<0.05). No factors associated with concordance of surrogate-patient response were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Surrogates' receptivity to critical illness research was not influenced by whether the study entailed collection of genetic data. While more than two-thirds of surrogate-patient responses for participation in genetics research were concordant, concerns expressed regarding genetic data often related to breach of confidentiality. Emphasizing safeguards in place to minimize such breeches might prove an effective strategy for enhancing recruitment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical Research; Critical Illness; Ethics Committees (Research); Genetics

Year:  2015        PMID: 26752784      PMCID: PMC4705445          DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2015.1039148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth        ISSN: 2329-4515


  39 in total

1.  Shattuck lecture--medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project.

Authors:  F S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-07-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  "Genetic exceptionalism" in medicine: clarifying the differences between genetic and nongenetic tests.

Authors:  Michael J Green; Jeffrey R Botkin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Protecting subjects with decisional impairment in research: the need for a multifaceted approach.

Authors:  Henry J Silverman; John M Luce; Jack Schwartz
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 21.405

4.  Considering the vulnerabilities of surrogate decision-makers when obtaining consent for critical care research.

Authors:  Kali A Barrett; Damon C Scales
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2011-11-26       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  Healthcare disparities in critical illness.

Authors:  Graciela J Soto; Greg S Martin; Michelle Ng Gong
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 7.598

6.  African Americans' opinions about human-genetics research.

Authors:  Paul Achter; Roxanne Parrott; Kami Silk
Journal:  Politics Life Sci       Date:  2005-06-21

7.  Research ethics. Research practice and participant preferences: the growing gulf.

Authors:  S B Trinidad; S M Fullerton; E J Ludman; G P Jarvik; E B Larson; W Burke
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-01-21       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study.

Authors:  Rita McWilliams; Julie Hoover-Fong; Ada Hamosh; Suzanne Beck; Terri Beaty; Garry Cutting
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-16       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Research ethics and consent in the intensive care unit.

Authors:  John M Luce
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.687

10.  Improving the process of informed consent in the critically ill.

Authors:  Nicole Davis; Anne Pohlman; Brian Gehlbach; John P Kress; Jane McAtee; Jean Herlitz; Jesse Hall
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-04-16       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  4 in total

1.  An Alternative Consent Process for Minimal Risk Research in the ICU.

Authors:  Melissa A Terry; Daniel E Freedberg; Marilyn C Morris
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 2.  [Ethics of resuscitation and end of life decisions].

Authors:  Spyros D Mentzelopoulos; Keith Couper; Patrick Van de Voorde; Patrick Druwé; Marieke Blom; Gavin D Perkins; Ileana Lulic; Jana Djakow; Violetta Raffay; Gisela Lilja; Leo Bossaert
Journal:  Notf Rett Med       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 0.826

3.  A systematic literature review of individuals' perspectives on privacy and genetic information in the United States.

Authors:  Ellen W Clayton; Colin M Halverson; Nila A Sathe; Bradley A Malin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Ethical aspects of sudden cardiac arrest research using observational data: a narrative review.

Authors:  Marieke A R Bak; Marieke T Blom; Hanno L Tan; Dick L Willems
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 9.097

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.