How Important Is 'Accuracy' of Surrogate Decision-Making for Research Participation?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Kim, Scott Y H ^a,b   Kim, H Myra ^a   Ryan, Kerry A ^a   Appelbaum, Paul S ^c   Knopman, David S ^d   Damschroder, Laura ^e   De Vries, Raymond ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^c NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e VA ANN ARBOR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENE TRANSFER; HUMAN; LUMBAR PUNCTURE; MALE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PEER GROUP; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

AGED; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MENTAL COMPETENCY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84873172822     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054790     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Kim SYH, Caine ED, Currier GW, Leibovici A, Ryan JM, (2001) Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am J Psychiatry 158: 712-717.
2. Okonkwo O, Griffith HR, Belue K, Lanza S, Zamrini EY, et al. (2007) Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 69: 1528-1535.
3. Kim S, Karlawish J, Kim H, Wall I, Bozoki A, et al. (2011) Preservation of the capacity to appoint a proxy decision maker: implications for dementia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 68: 214-220.
4. Kim SYH, Uhlmann RA, Appelbaum PS, Knopman DS, Kim HM, et al. (2010) Deliberative assessment of surrogate consent in dementia research. Alzheimers Dement 6: 342-350.
5. Kim SY, Kim HM, Langa KM, Karlawish JH, Knopman DS, et al. (2009) Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology 72: 149-155.
6. Kim SYH, Kim HM, Knopman DS, De Vries R, Damschroder L, et al. (2011) Effect of public deliberation on attitudes toward surrogate consent for dementia research. Neurology 77: 2097-2104.
7. Shalowitz DI, Garrett-Mayer E, Wendler D, (2006) The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers: A Systematic Review. Arch Intern Med 166: 493-497.
8. Kirchhoff KT, Hammes BJ, Kehl KA, Briggs LA, Brown RL, (2010) Effect of a disease-specific planning intervention on surrogate understanding of patient goals for future medical treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 58: 1233-1240.
9. Coppolino M, Ackerson L, (2001) Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest 119: 603-612.
10. Ciroldi M, Cariou A, Adrie C, Annane D, Castelain V, et al. (2007) Ability of family members to predict patient's consent to critical care research. Intensive Care Med 33: 807-813.
11. Wendler D, Martinez RA, Fairclough D, Sunderland T, Emanuel E, (2002) Views of Potential Subjects Toward Proposed Regulations for Clinical Research With Adults Unable to Consent. Am J Psychiatry 159: 585-591.
12. Sehgal A, Galbraith A, Chesney M, Schoenfeld P, Charles G, et al. (1992) How strictly do dialysis patients want their advance directive followed? JAMA 267: 59-63.
13. Puchalski CM, Zhong ZS, Jacobs MM, Fox E, Lynn J, et al. (2000) Patients who want their family and physician to make resuscitation decisions for them: Observations from SUPPORT and HELP. J Am Geriatr Soc 48: S84-S90.
14. Hawkins NA, Ditto PH, Danks JH, Smucker WD, (2005) Micromanaging death: Process preferences, values, and goals in end-of-life medical decision making. Gerontologist 45: 107-117.
15. Stocking CB, Hougham GW, Danner DD, Patterson MB, Whitehouse PJ, et al. (2006) Speaking of research advance directives: Planning for future research participation. Neurology 66: 1361-1366.
16. Karlawish J, Rubright J, Casarett D, Cary M, Ten Have T, et al. (2009) Older adults' attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer's research. Am J Psychiatry 166: 131-134.
17. Kim S, Wall I, Stanczyk A, De Vries R, (2009) Assessing the public's views in research ethics controversies: deliberative democracy and bioethics as natural allies. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 4: 3-16.
18. De Vries R, Stanczyk A, Ryan K, Kim SYH, (2011) A Framework for Assessing the Quality of Democratic Deliberation: Enhancing Deliberation as a Tool for Bioethics. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 6: 3-17.
19. Fagerlin A, Schneider CE, (2004) Enough: the failure of the living will. Hastings Center Report 34: 30-42.