Comfort with proxy consent to research involving decisionally impaired older adults: Do type of proxy and risk-benefit profile matter?

International Psychogeriatrics

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 1479-1488

  Dubois, Marie France ^a,b   Bravo, Gina ^a,b   Graham, Janice ^c   Wildeman, Sheila ^c   Cohen, Carole ^d   Painter, Karen ^b   Bellemare, Suzanne ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF GERIATRICS OF SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

advance directives; Canada; court appointment; dementia research; opinions; postal survey; risk benefit ratio; substitute consent

Indexed keywords

AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; CANADA; CAREGIVER; COURT; CUSTODY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PHYSICIAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CANADA; DATA COLLECTION; DEMENTIA; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROXY; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80053567167     PISSN: 10416102     EISSN: 1741203X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610211000433     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Alzheimer's Association (2004). Research consent for cognitively impaired adults: recommendations for institutional review boards and investigators. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 18, 171-175.
2. Alzheimer's Disease International (2009). World Alzheimer Report 2009. London: Alzheimer's Disease International.
3. Ayalon, L. (2009). Willingness to participate in Alzheimer disease research and attitudes towards proxy-informed consent: results from the Health and Retirement Study. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 65-74. doi:10.1097/JGP.0b013e31818cd3d3.
4. bravo, G., Dubois, M.-F. and Pâquet, M. (2003a). Advance directives for health care and research: prevalence and correlates. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 17, 215-222. (Pubitemid 37517789)
5. bravo, G., Pâquet, M. and Dubois, M.-F. (2003b). Opinions regarding who should consent to research on behalf of an older adult suffering from dementia. Dementia, 2, 49-65.
6. bravo, G., Dubois, M.-F. and Pâquet, M. (2004a). The conduct of Canadian researchers and institutional review boards regarding substituted consent for research. IRb: Ethics & Human Research, 26, 1-8.
7. bravo, G., Dubois, M.-F., Pâquet, M., Langlois, F. and bernier, J.-P. (2004b). Qúebec physicians' knowledge and opinions regarding substitute consent for decisionally incapacitated older adults. IRb: Ethics & Human Research, 26, 12-17. (Pubitemid 43362253)
8. bravo, G., Gagnon, M., Wildeman, S., Marshall, D. T., Pâquet, M. and Dubois, M.-F. (2005). Comparison of provincial and territorial legislation governing substitute consent for research. Canadian Journal on Aging, 24, 237-250. (Pubitemid 43001315)
9. bravo, G., Duguet, A.-M., Dubois, M.-F., Delpierre, C. and Vellas, B. (2008). Substitute consent for research involving the elderly: a comparison between Quebec and France. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 23, 239-253. doi:10.1007/s10823-008-9070-x.
10. bravo, G. et al. (in press). Are Canadians providing advance directives about health care and research participation in the event of decisional incapacity? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada( 2005). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada
12. Coleman, C. H. (2008). Research with decisionally incapacitated human subjects: an argument for a systemic approach to risk-benefit assessment. Indiana Law Journal, 83, 743-789.
13. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
14. Graham, J. E. (2008). Facilitating regulation: the dance of statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness in standardizing technologies for dementia. BioSocieties, 3, 241-263. doi:10.1017/ S1745855208006182.
15. Karlawish, J., Kim, S. Y. H., Knopman, D., van Dyck, C.H., James, B. D. and Marson, D. (2008). The views of Alzheimer disease patients and their study partners on proxy consent for clinical trial enrolment. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 240-247. doi:10.1097/ JGP.0b013e318162992d.
16. Karlawish, J., Rubright, J., Casarett, D., Cary, M., Ten Have, T. and Sankar, P. (2009). Older adults' attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer's research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 182-188. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08050645.
17. Kim, S. Y. H., Cox, C. and Caine, E. D. (2002). Impaired decision-making ability in subjects with Alzheimer's disease and willingness to participate in research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 797-802. (Pubitemid 34465054)
18. Kim, S. Y. H., Appelbaum, P. S., Jeste, D. V. and Olin, J. T. (2004). Proxy and surrogate consent in geriatric neuropsychiatric research: update and recommendations. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 797-806. (Pubitemid 38625332)
19. Kim, S. Y. H., Kim, H. M., McCallum, C. and Tariot, P. N. (2005). What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research? Neurology, 65, 1395-1401. doi:10.1212/01. wnl.0000183144.61428.73. (Pubitemid 41552768)
20. Kim, S. Y. H., Kim, H. M., Langa, K. M., Karlawish, J. H. T., Knopman, D. S. and Appelbaum, P. S. (2009a). Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology, 72, 149-155. doi:10.1212/01.wnl. 0000339039.18931.a2.
21. Kim, S. Y. H., Wall, I. F., Stanczyk, A. and De Vries, R. (2009b). Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4, 3-16. doi:10.1525/jer.2009.4.4.3.
22. Kim, S. Y. H. et al. (2010). Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research. Alzheimer's and Dementia, 6, 342-350. doi:10.1016/ j.jalz.2009.06.001.
23. Muir v. Alberta (1996). 132 D.L.R. (4th) 695 (Alta Q.b.) National Patient Safety Agency - National Research Ethics Service (UK) (2009). http://www.nres. npsa.nhs.uk/applications/guidance; last accessed 25 October 2010.
24. Peterson, G. andWallin, A. (2003). Alzheimer disease ethics - informed consent and related issues in clinical trials: results of a survey among the members of the Research Ethics Committees in Sweden. International Psychogeriatrics, 15, 157-170. (Pubitemid 37337452)
25. Raudenbush, S. W., bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F. and Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
26. Saks, E. R., Dunn, L. b., Wimer, J., Gonzales, M. and Kim, S. (2008). Proxy consent to research: the legal landscape. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 8, 37-92.
27. Slaughter, S., Cole, D., Jennings, E. and Reimer, M. A. (2007). Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nursing Ethics, 14, 27-40. doi:10.1177/0969733007071355.
28. Warner, J., McCarney, R., Griffin, M., Hill, K. and Fisher, P. (2008). Participation in dementia research: rates and correlates of capacity to give informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 167-170. doi:10.1136/ jme.2006.019786.
29. Wendler, D., Martinez, R. A., Fairclough, D., Sunderland, T. and Emanuel, E. (2002). Views of potential subjects toward proposed regulations for clinical research with adults unable to consent. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 585-591. (Pubitemid 34274940)