Meta-consent in research on decisional capacity: A "Catch-22"?

Schizophrenia Bulletin

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 42-46

  Saks, Elyn R ^a   Dunn, Laura B ^b   Palmer, Barton W ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioethics; Clinical trials; Decision making capacity; Informed consent; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE DEFECT; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICISM; ETHICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCHIZOPHRENIA;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICISM; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 30344469659     PISSN: 05867614     EISSN: 17451701     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbj017     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Mulvey EP, Fletcher K. The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study: II. measures of abilities related to competence to consent to treatment. Law Hum Behav. 1995;19:127-148.
2. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study: III. abilities of patients to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments. Law Hum Behav. 1995;19:149-174.
3. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study: I. Mental illness and competence to consent to treatment. Law Hum Behav. 1995;19:105-126.
4. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. MacCAT-CR: MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Sarasota, Fla: Professional Resource Press; 2001.
5. Roberts LW, Hammond KA, Warner TD, Lewis R. Influence of ethical safeguards on research participation: comparison of perspectives of people with schizophrenia and psychiatrists. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:2309-2311.
6. Roberts L, Roberts B. Psychiatric research ethics: an overview of evolving guidelines and current ethical dilemmas in the study of mental illness. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;46:1025-1038.
7. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent: an annotated bibliography. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29:S1-42.
8. Marson D, Ingram KK. Competency to consent to treatment: a growing field of research: commentary. J Ethics Law Aging. 1996;2:59-63.
9. Sachs GA, Hougham GW, Sugarman J, et al. Conducting empirical research on informed consent: challenges and questions. IRB. 2003;25(Suppl):S4-S10.
10. Hougham GW, Sachs GA, Danner D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent with the cognitively impaired. IRB. 2003;25(Suppl):S26-S32.
11. Palmer BW, Dunn LB, Appelbaum PS, et al. Assessment of capacity to consent to research among older persons with schizophrenia, Alzheimer disease, or diabetes mellitus: comparison of a 3-item questionnaire with a comprehensive standardized capacity instrument. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:726-733.
12. Dunn LB, Roberts LW. Emerging findings in ethics of schizophrenia research. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2005;18:111-119.
13. Agre P, Rapkin B, Dougherty J, Wilson R. Barriers encountered conducting informed consent research. IRB. 2002;24:1-5.
14. Miller FG, Wendler D. Assessing the ethics of ethics research: a case study. IRB. 2004;26:9-12.
15. Roberts LW. Evidence-based ethics and informed consent in mental illness research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:540-542.
16. Miller FG. Ethical significance of ethics-related empirical research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1821-1822.
17. Califf RM, Morse MA, Wittes J, et al. Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:256-271.
18. Kim SY, Millard RW, Nisbet P, Cox C, Caine ED. Potential research participants' views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:73-79.
19. Post SG. Full-spectrum proxy consent for research participation when persons with Alzheimer disease lose decisional capacities: research ethics and the common good. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2003;17(Suppl 1):S3-11.
20. Karlawish JH. Clinical value: the neglected axis in the system of research ethics. Account Res. 1999;7:255-264.
21. Chen DT, Rosenstein DL, Muthappan P, et al. Research with stored biological samples: what do research participants want? Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:652-655.
22. Henderson GE, Davis AM, King NM, et al. Uncertain benefit: investigators' views and communications in early phase gene transfer trials. Mol Ther. 2004;10:225-231.
23. Churchill LR, Nelson DK, Henderson GE, et al. Assessing benefits in clinical research: why diversity in benefit assessment can be risky. IRB. 2003;25:1-8.
24. Heller J. Catch-22. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1961.
25. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1979.
26. Prentice KJ, Gold JM, Carpenter WT. Optimistic bias in the perception of personal risk: patterns in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:507-512.
27. Palmer BW, Dunn LB, Appelbaum PS, Jeste DV. Correlates of treatment-related decision-making capacity among middle-aged and older patients with schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61:230-236.
28. Cohen BJ, McGarvey EL, Pinkerton RC, Kryzhanivska L. Willingness and competence of depressed and schizophrenic inpatients to consent to research. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004;32:134-143.
29. Marson DC, Chatterjee A, Ingram KK, Harrell LE. Toward a neurologic model of competency: cognitive predictors of capacity to consent in Alzheimer's disease using three different legal standards. Neurology. 1996;46:666-672.
30. Dunn LB, Lindamer LA, Palmer BW, Golshan S, Schneiderman LJ, Jeste DV. Improving understanding of research consent in middle-aged and elderly patients with psychotic disorders. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:142-150.
31. Carpenter WT, Gold JM, Lahti AC, et al. Decisional capacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000;57:533-538.
32. Moser D, Reese R, Schultz S, et al. Informed consent in medication-free schizophrenia research. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:1209-1211.
33. Moser DJ, Schultz SK, Arndt S, et al. Capacity to provide informed consent for participation in schizophrenia and HIV research. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:1201-1207.
34. Saks ER. Competency to Decide on Treatment and Research: The MacArthur Capacity Instruments.. Rockville, Md: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1999.
35. Saks ER. Refusing Care: Forced Treatment and the Rights of the Mentally Ill.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2002.
36. Kim SY, Caine ED, Currier GW, Leibovici A, Ryan JM. Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:712-717.
37. Dunn LB, Nowrangi M, Palmer BW, Jeste DV, Saks E. Assessing capacity to consent to treatment and research: a review of instruments. Am J Psychiatry. In press.
38. Dresser R. Mentally disabled research subjects: the enduring policy issues. JAMA. 1996;276:67-72.
39. Berg JW, Appelbaum PS. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.
40. Grisso T, Appelbaum P. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
41. Saks ER, Dunn LB, Marshall BJ, Nayak GV, Golshan S, Jeste DV. The California Scale of Appreciation: a new instrument to measure the appreciation component of capacity to consent to research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:166-174.
42. Grisso T. Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments.. New York: Kluwer; 2003.
43. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decision-Making Capacity. Rockville, Md: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1998.
44. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office of Protection from Research Risks. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45: Public Welfare. Part 46, Subpart A: Protection of Human Subjects. Bethesda, Md: Dept of Health and Human Services; 1991.
45. Karlawish JH, Knopman D, Clark CM, et al. Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB. 2002;24:1-5.
46. Kim SY, Appelbaum PS, Jeste DV, Olin JT. Proxy and surrogate consent in geriatric neuropsychiatric research: update and recommendations. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:797-806.
47. Kim SY, Karlawish JH. Ethics and politics of research involving subjects with impaired decision-making abilities. Neurology. 2003;61:1645-1646.
48. California Health and Safety Code S24178 (2005). Available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group= 24001-25000&file=24170-24179.5. Accessed October 21, 2005.
49. Charney DS. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission report: the response of the psychiatric research community is critical to restoring public trust. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:699-700.
50. Appelbaum PS. Missing the boat: competence and consent in psychiatric research. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155:1486-1488.