Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR): How can we optimize outcomes in cns research?

Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience

Volumn 12, Issue 3-4, 2015, Pages 27-31

  Wadekar, Mitali ^a   Sharma, Anil ^a   Battaglia, Gina ^b  

^a IRB Company   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Central nervous system disorders; CNS disorders; Decision making capacity; Impaired decision making capacity; Patient centered outcomes

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASE; DECISION MAKING; DEMENTIA; DEPRESSION; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE DISPARITY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LAW; MENTAL DISEASE; PATIENT CARE; RESEARCH; SCHIZOPHRENIA;

EID: 84938079316     PISSN: 21588333     EISSN: 21588341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. http://www.pcori.org/research-wesupport/pcor/. Accessed May 28, 2014
2. Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research Center. http://www.brighamandwomens.org/research/centers/pcerc/default.aspx. Accessed May 28, 2014
3. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. I: mental illness and competence to consent to treatment. Law Hum Behav. 1995;19:105–126
4. Kim SY, Appelbaum PS, Swan J, et al. Determining when impairment constitutes incapacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;191:38–43
5. Stocking CB, Hougham GW, Danner DD, et al. Variable judgments of decisional capacity in cognitively impaired research subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1893–1897
6. Jeste DV, Depp CA, Palmer BW. Magnitude of impairment in decisional capacity in people with schizophrenia compared to normal subjects: an overview. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32:121–128
7. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Frank E, et al. Competence of depressed patients for consent to research. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156:1380–1384
8. Rudnick A. Depression and competence to refuse psychiatric treatment. J Med Ethics. 2002;28:151–155
9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Research involving those institutionalized as mentally infirm. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare Publication No (OS) 78-0006;1978. http://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_r esearch_mentally_infirm.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2015
10. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons with Psychiatric Disorders that May Affect Decision Making Capacity. Washington, DC: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; 1999. Available at: https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/nbac/capacity/volumeii.pdf. Accessed May 28, 2014
11. National Institutes of Health. Office of Extramural Research. Research involving individuals with questionable capacity to consent: points to consider. November 2009. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/questionablecapacity.htm. Accessed May 28, 2014
12. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Chapter VI: Special classes of subjects. 1993. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/ir b/irb_chapter6.htm. Accessed May 28, 2014
13. US Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections. Request for information and comments on research that involves adult individuals with impaired decisionmaking capacity. Federal Register. 2007;72:50966–50970
14. Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, et al. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. Am J Bioeth. 2004;3:44–49
15. Silvers A. Historical vulnerability and special scrutiny: precautions against discrimination in medical research. Am J Bioeth. 2004;3:56–57
16. Yanos PT, Stanley BS, Greene CS. Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge. Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60:374–383
17. Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1436–1440
18. International Military Tribunal. Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council law no. 10. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1950
19. Annas GJ, Grodin MA (eds). The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation. New York: Oxford University Press; 1992
20. Meiklejohn GN. Commission on influenza. In: Woodward TE (ed). The Armed Forces Epidemiological Board: Histories of the Commissions. Washington, DC: Borden Institute. Office of the Surgeon General. United States Department of the Army; 1994
21. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Fact sheet on the 1946-1948 U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Inoculation Study. http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html. Accessed May 28, 2014
22. Alliance for Human Research Protection. Children were the raw material of medical research. CBS 60 Minutes. Monday, February 28, 2005. http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/02/28.php. Accessed May 28, 2014
23. Blau SE. Institute charged in Fernald radiation experiment lawsuit. The Tech: Online Edition. 1995;115. http://tech.mit.edu/V115/N49/radiation.49n.html. Accessed May 28, 2014
24. American Psychiatric Association’s Task Force on Research Ethics. Ethical principles and practices for research involving human participants with mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 2006;57:552–557
25. Michels R. Are research ethics bad for our mental health? N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1427–1430
26. Sirotin N, Wolf LE, Pollack LM, et al. IRBs and ethically challenging protocols: views of IRB chairs about useful resources. IRB. 2010;32:10–19
27. Muroff JR, Hoerauf SL, Kim SY. Is psychiatric research stigmatized? An experimental survey of the public. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32:129–136
28. Marson DC, Annis SM, McInturff B, et al. Error behaviors associated with loss of competency in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology. 1999;53:1983–1992
29. Kaup AR, Dunn LB, Saks ER, et al. Decisional capacity and consent for schizophrenia research. IRB. 2011;33:1–9
30. Stiles PG, Poythress NG, Hall A, et al. Improving understanding of research consent disclosures among persons with mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2001;52:780–785
31. Cohen BJ, McGarvey EL, Pinkerton RC, Kryzhanivska L. Willingness and competence of depressed and schizophrenic inpatients to consent to research. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004;32:134–143
32. Anderson KK, Mukherjee SD. The need for additional safeguards in the informed consent process in schizophrenia research. J Med Ethics. 2007;33:647–650
33. Leeman CP. Depression and the right to die. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1999;21:112–115
34. Halpern J. When concretized emotion-belief complexes derail decision making capacity. Bioethics. 2012;26:108–116
35. Young EW, Corby JC, Johnson R. Does depression invalidate competence? Consultants’ ethical, psychiatric, and legal considerations. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 1993;2:505–515
36. Meynen G. Depression, possibilities, and competence: a phenomenological perspective. Theor Med Bioeth. 2011;32:181–193
37. Peternelj-Taylor AC. Conceptualizing nursing research with offenders: another look at vulnerability. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2005;28:348–359
38. Fisher CB. Ethics in drug abuse and related HIV risk research. Appl Dev Sci. 2004;8:91–103
39. Smebye KL, Kirkevold M, Engedal K. How do persons with dementia participate in decision making related to health and daily care? A multi-case study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:241
40. Holm S. Autonomy, authenticity, or best interest: everyday decision making and persons with dementia. Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4:153–159
41. Sabat SR. Capacity for decision making in Alzheimer’s disease: selfhood, positioning and semiotic people. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39:1030–1035
42. Kitwood T. Dementia Reconsidered: The Person Comes First. Birkshire: Open University Press; 1997.