Considerations of informed consent and decision-making competence in older adults with cognitive impairment

Research in Gerontological Nursing

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 103-111

  Mayo, Ann M ^a   Wallhagen, Margaret I ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; COGNITIVE DEFECT; ETHICS; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRIC NURSING; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL CAPACITY; METHODOLOGY; NURSING ASSESSMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

AGED; COGNITION DISORDERS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; GERIATRIC NURSING; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY; NURSING ASSESSMENT; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 75749108569     PISSN: 19404921     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3928/19404921-20090401-08     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Alzheimer's Association. (2004). Research consent for cognitively im paired adults: Recommendations for institutional review boards and investigators. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 18, 171-175.
2. American Geriatrics Society. (2007). AGS position statement: The responsible conduct of research. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from http://www.americangeriatrics.org/products/positionpapers/respcondresearchPF.shtml
3. American Geriatrics Society, Adler, R.N., & Kamel, H.K. (2004). Doorway thoughts: Cross-cultural care for older adults. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
4. American Nurses Association. (2005). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ThePracticeofProfessionalNursing/EthicsStandards/CodeofEthics/CodeofEthics.aspx
5. Appelbaum, P.S., & Grisso, T. (2001). MacCAT-CR: MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
6. Autonomy. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomy
7. Beck, C., & Shue, V. (2003). Surrogate decision-making and related issues. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 17(Suppl. 1), S12-S16.
8. Burns, K., & Bechara, A. (2007). Decision making and free will: A neuroscience perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 263-280.
9. Cahill, M., & Wichman, A. (2000). Research involving persons with cognitive impairments: Results of a survey of Alzheimer disease research centers in the United States. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 14, 20-27.
10. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45, Public welfare, Department of Health and Human Services: Part 46, protection of human subjects. (2005). Retrieved June 15, 2008, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
11. Cummings, J.L. (2003). The neuropsychiatry of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. London: Martin Dunitz, Ltd.
12. Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). "Mini-mental state." A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
13. Foster, S.M., Cornwell, R.E., Kisley, M.A., & Davis, H.P. (2007). Cognitive changes across the life span. In S.H. Qualls & M.A. Smyer (Eds.), Changes in decision-making capacity in older adults: Assessment and intervention (pp. 25-60). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
14. Fowler, B.A. (2006). Social processes used by African American women in making decisions about mammography screening. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 38, 247-254.
15. th ed., pp. 403-430). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
16. Goodenough, O.R., & Prehn, K. (2004). A neuroscientific approach to normative judgment in law and justice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359, 1709-1726.
17. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P.S. (1998). Assessing competence to consent to treatment: A guide for physicians and other health professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
19. Holt, R., Siddiqi, N., & Young, J. (2008). The ethics of consent in delirium studies. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65, 283-287.
20. Johnson, G.L., & Nelson, R.M. (2000). Informed consent and assent in human subject research. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 6(6), 9-18.
21. Karlawish, J., Kim, S.Y., Knopman, D., van Dyck, C.H., James, B.D., & Marson, D. (2008a). Interpreting the clinical significance of capacity scores for informed consent in Alzheimer disease clinical trials. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 568-574.
22. Karlawish, J., Kim, S.Y., Knopman, D., van Dyck, C.H., James, B.D., & Marson, D. (2008b). The views of Alzheimer disease patients and their study partners on proxy consent for clinical trial enrollment. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 240-247.
23. Kim, S.Y., Caine, E.D., Currier, G.W., Leibovici, A., & Ryan, J.M. (2001). Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 712-717.
24. Kim, S.Y., Karlawish, J.H., & Caine, E.D. (2002). Current state of research on decision-making competence of cognitively impaired elderly persons. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 151-165.
25. nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26. Marson, D.C., Cody, H.A., Ingram, K.K., & Harrell, L.E. (1995). Neuropsychologic predictors of competency in Alzheimer's disease using a rational reasons legal standard. Archives of Neurology, 52, 955-959.
27. Moye, J., & Braun, M. (2007). Assessment of medical consent capacity and independent living. In S.H. Qualls & M.A. Smyer (Eds.),Changes in decision-making capacity in older adults: Assessment and intervention (pp. 205-236).
28. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1998). Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from the Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics Library & Information Services Web site: http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/capacity/TOC.htm
29. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report. Retrieved June 15, 2008, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
30. Nussbaum, M.C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31. Plassman, B.L., Langa, K.M., Fisher, G.G., Heeringa, S.G., Weir, D.R., Ofstedal, M.B., et al. (2007). Prevalence of dementia in the United States: The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study. Neuroepidemiology, 29, 125-132.
32. Qualls, S.H. (2007). Clinical interventions for decision making with impaired persons. In S.H. Qualls & M.A. Smyer (Eds.), Changes in decision-making capacity in older adults: Assessment and intervention (pp. 271-298). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
33. Rikkert, M.G., van den Bercken, J.H., ten Have, H.A., & Hoefnagels, W.H. (1997). Experienced consent in geriatrics research: A new method to optimize the capacity to consent in frail elderly subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 23, 271-276.
34. Rosin, A.J., & van Dijk, Y. (2005). Subtle ethical dilemmas in geriatric management and clinical research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 355-359.
35. Sachs, G.A. (2007). American Geriatrics Society position statement informed consent for research on human subjects with dementia. Retrieved February 9, 2009, from http://www.americangeriatrics.org/products/positionpapers/infconsentPF.shtml
36. rd ed.). Philadelphia: Davis.
37. State of California. (2007). California health and safety code, section 24170-24179.5: Chapter 1.3, human experimentation. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from the Official California Legislative Information Web site: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=24001-25000&file=24170-24179.5
38. Stocking, C.B., Hougham, G.W., Danner, D.D., Patterson, M.B., Whitehouse, P.J., & Sachs, G.A. (2007). Empirical assessment of a research advance directive for persons with dementia and their proxies. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55, 1609-1612.
39. Sugarman, J., Cain, C., Wallace, R., & Welsh-Bohmer, K.A. (2001). How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49, 1110-1119.
40. Tripp-Reimer, T., Choi, E., Kelley, L.S., & Enslein, J.C. (2001). Cultural barriers to care: Inverting the problem. Diabetes Spectrum, 14, 13-22.