Informed consent issues in traumatic brain injury research: Current status of capacity assessment and recommendations for safeguards

Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 145-150

  Johnson Greene, Doug ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COGNITION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; POPULATION RESEARCH; REVIEW; TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY;

BRAIN INJURIES; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY;

EID: 77949591046     PISSN: 08859701     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3181d8287d     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. Levine RJ. Consent issues in human research. In: Reich WT, ed. Encyclopedia of Human Ethics. Vol 2. New York, NY: Macmillan; 1995:1241-1250.
2. Applebaum PS, Loren H, Roth C, Lidz W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17(2):20-24.
3. Berg JW, Applebaum PS, Lidz CW. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2001.
4. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL.AHistory and Theory of InformedConsent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1986.
5. Ayala C, Greenlund KJ, Croft JB, et al. Racial/ethnic disparities in mortality by stroke subtype in the United States 1995-1998. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:1057-1063.
6. del Carmen M, Joffe S. Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review. Oncologist. 2005;10(8):636-641.
7. Lederer SE. Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America Before World War II. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1995.
8. Trials ofWar Criminals Before theNuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1949:181-182.
9. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Paper presented at: the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; April 18, 1979;Washington, DC.
10. Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects. Paper presented at: 18th World Medical Assembly; June 1964; Helsinki, Finland.
11. 45 CFR 46. Fed Regist; 1991;56:28012.
12. Brandt AM. Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Center Rep. 1978;8:21-29.
13. Reprinted in Leavitt J, Numbers R, eds. Sickness and Health in America. 2nd ed. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; 1985:331-346.
14. Palmer BW, Savla GN. The association of specific neuropsychological deficits with capacity to consent to research treatment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007;13:1047-1059.
15. US Department of Health and Human Services. Request for information and comments on research that involves adult individuals with impaired decision-making capacity. Fed Regist. 2007;72(171):50966-50970.
16. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Guidelines for Research Involving Cognitively Impaired Subjects. Washington, DC: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1999:1-25.
17. Applebaum PS. Involving decisionally impaired subjects in research: the need for legislation. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10: 120-124.
18. Karlawish J, Knopman D, Clark CM, et al. Informed consent for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB. 2002;24(5):1-5.
19. Okonkwo OC, Griffith HR, Belue K, et al. Cognitive models of medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008;14:287-308.
20. Sugarman J, Roter D, Cain C, Wallace R, Schmechel D, Welsh- Bohmer K. Proxies and consent discussions for dementia research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:556-561.
21. Dreer LE, DeVivo MJ, Novack TA, Krywanski S, Marson DC. Cognitive predictors of medical decision-making capacity in traumatic brain injury. Rehabil Psychol. 2008;53(4):486-497.
22. Titus SL, Keane MA. Do you understand? An ethical assessment of researchers' description of the consenting process. J Clin Ethics. 1996;7(1):60-68.
23. Dunn LB, Jeste DV. Enhancing informed consent for research and treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001;24:595-607.
24. Sugarman J, Lavori PW, Boeger M, et al. Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clin Trials. 2005;2:34-41.
25. Winslade WJ, Tovino SA. Research with brain-injured subjects. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19(6):513-515.
26. Winslade WJ. Research on minimally conscious patients: innovation or exploitation? J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2004;19(2):178-179.
27. Karlawish J. Research involving cognitively impaired adults. N Engl JMed. 2003;348:1389-1392.
28. Marson DC, Ingram KK, Cody HA, Harrell LE. Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer's disease under different legal standards. Arch Neurol. 1995;52:949-954.
29. Sturman ED. The capacity to consent to treatment and research: a review of standardized assessment tools. Clin Psychol Rev. 2005;25(7):954-974.
30. Applebaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients' capacity to consent to treatment. N Engl JMed. 1988;319:1635-1638.
31. JesteDV, PalmerBW, Appelbaum PS, et al. A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64(8):966-974.
32. Wendler D, Prasad K. Core safeguards for clinical research with adults who are unable to consent. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(7): 514-523.