What to tell and how to tell: A qualitative study of information sharing in research for adults with intellectual disability

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 501-506

  Andre Barron, D ^a   Strydom, A ^b   Hassiotis, A ^a  

^a ROYAL FREE AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b Hampstead Campus ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAREGIVER; CLINICAL TRIAL; ETHICS; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL CAPACITY; MENTAL PATIENT; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

CAREGIVERS; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; LONDON; MENTAL COMPETENCY; MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 55249087038     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.019521     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. World Health Organization. World Health Report 2001 - Mental health: new understanding, new hope. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
2. The Medical Research Council. The ethical conduct of research on the mentally incapacitated. Report of the Working Party on Research on the Mentally Incapacitated. London: MRC, 1991.
3. Gilbert T. Involving people with learning disabilities in research: issues and possibilities. Health Soc Care Community 2004;12:298-308.
4. Department of Health. Valuing people: a new strategy for learning disability for the 21st century. London: Stationery Office, 2001.
5. Department of Health. The Learning Difficulties Research Team. Let me in - I'm a researcher. London: Stationery Office, 2006.
6. Oliver P, Piachaud J, Done J, et al. Difficulties in conducting a randomized controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability: implications for evidence-based practice. J Intellect Disabil Res 2002;46:340-5.
7. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1949:181-2.
8. Donnellan P, Smyth J. Informed consent and randomized trials. J R Coll Surg Edinb 2001;46:100-2.
9. Sidaway v Bethlem, Royal Hospital HL (E) 1 All ER 643, 1985.
10. Chatterton v Gerson, Bristow J. All ER 257, 1981.
11. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (accessed 11 Mar 2008).
12. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April. http://www.eortc.be/Services/Doc/clinical-EU-directive-04-April-01. pdf (accessed 1 Apr 2008).
13. National Patient Safety Agency (National Research Ethics Service) 2007. Information sheets and consent forms: guidance for researchers and reviewers. Version 3.2.
14. The International Conference on the Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Working party guidelines for good clinical practice Consolidated Guideline. Geneva: ICH, 1996.
15. Arscott K, Dagnan D, Kroese B. Assessing the ability of people with learning disability to give informed consent to treatment. Psychol Med 1999;29:1367-75.
16. Keywood K, Fovargue S, Flynn M. Best practice? Health care decision making by, with and for adults with learning disabilities. Manchester: National Development Team, 1999.
17. Flyn M, Keywood K, Fovargue S. Consent to treatment and people with intellectual disabilities. Learning About Intellectual Disabilities and Health 1998. http://www.intellectualdisability.info/walking/trainee_psych/ 5_informed_consent.htm (accessed 11 Mar 2008).
18. Otte A, Maier-Lenz H, Dierckx R. Good clinical practice: historical background and key aspects. Nucl Med Commun 2005;26:563-74.
19. Litosseleti L. Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum, 2003:16-20.
20. Fraser M, Fraser A. Are people with learning disabilities able to contribute to focus groups on health promotion. J Adv Nurs 2001;33:225-33.
21. Bollard M. Going to the doctors: the findings from a focus group with people with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil 2003;7:156-64.
22. NVIVO. QSR International, http://www.qsrinternational.com (accessed 1 Apr 2008).
23. Dunn L, Nowrangi M, Palmer B, et al. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: a review of instruments. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:1323-34.
24. Fisher C, Cea C, Davidson P, et al. Capacity of persons with mental retardation to consent to participate in randomised control trials. Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:1813-20.
25. Edgerton RB. The cloak of competence. Berkeley: University of California, 1967.
26. Kebbell MR, Hatton C, Johnson SD. Witnesses with mental retardation in court: What questions are asked and what influence do they have? Legal and Criminological Psychology 2004;9:23-35.
27. Cooray S, Bakala A. Anxiety disorders in people with learning disabilities. Adv Psychiatr Treat 2005;11:355-61.
28. Orlowski PJ, Christensen JA. The potentially coercive nature of some clinical research trial acronyms. Chest 2000;121:2023-28.
29. Department of Health (2006). Our health our care our say. London: Stationary Office, 2005.
30. The Mental Capacity Act 2005. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ acts2005/20050009.htm (accessed 11 Mar 2008).
31. Fyson R, Simons K. Strategies for change: making valuing people a reality. Br J Learn Disabil 2003;31:153-8.
32. Allmark P, Mason S. Improving the quality of consent to RCT by using continuous consent and clinician training in the consent process. J Med Ethics 2006;32:439-43.