Consent recommendations for research and international data sharing involving persons with dementia

Alzheimer's and Dementia

Volumn 14, Issue 10, 2018, Pages 1334-1343

  Thorogood, Adrian ^a   Mäki Petäjä Leinonen, Anna ^b   Brodaty, Henry ^c   Dalpé, Gratien ^a   Gastmans, Chris ^d   Gauthier, Serge ^e   Gove, Dianne ^f   Harding, Rosie ^g   Knoppers, Bartha Maria ^a   Rossor, Martin ^h   Bobrow, Martin ⁱ  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^e MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f ALZHEIMER EUROPE   (Luxembourg)

^g UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Advance directive; Alzheimer's disease; Broad consent; Consent process; Dementia; International data sharing; Representative; Research participation; Supported decision making; Will and preferences

Indexed keywords

AUTHORITY; DECISION MAKING; DEMENTIA; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LIVING WILL; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PLANNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; ETHICS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DEMENTIA; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNATIONALITY;

EID: 85051721800     PISSN: 15525260     EISSN: 15525279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2018.05.011     Document Type: Short Survey

References (78)

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Recommendation of the OECD Council on Health Data. 2017, Governance, Paris.
2. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), with the World Health Organization (WHO). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: CIOMS, 2016.
3. World Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human. 2013, Subjects, Helsinki.
4. Joly, Y., Feze, I.N., Song, L., Knoppers, B.M., Comparative approaches to genetic discrimination: chasing shadows?. Trends Genet 35 (2017), 299–302.
5. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. A federated ecosystem for sharing genomic, clinical data. Science 352 (2016), 1278–1280.
6. Paris Addressing Dementia: the OECD Response Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.
7. Grady, C., Enduring and emerging challenges of informed consent. N Engl J Med 372 (2015), 855–862.
8. Jongsma, K., Bos, W., Van de Vathorst, S., Morally relevant similarities and differences between children and dementia patients as research subjects: representation in legal documents and ethical guidelines. Bioethics 29 (2015), 662–670.
9. United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York, 2006.
10. Karlawish, J., Rubright, J., Casarett, D., Cary, M., Ten Have, T., Sankar, P., Older adults’ attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer's research. Am J Psychiatry 166 (2009), 182–188.
11. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Regulatory and Ethics Toolkit. Available at: https://www.ga4gh.org/ga4ghtoolkit/regulatoryandethics/ Accessed July 4, 2018.
12. Knopman, D., Alford, E., Tate, K., Long, M., Khachaturian, A.S., Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two-stage scientific and ethics review: the next adaptation for single institutional review boards. Alzheimers Dement 13 (2017), 940–946.
13. Robillard, J.M., Feng, T.L., When patient engagement and research ethics collide: lessons from a dementia forum. J Alzheimers Dis 59 (2017), 1–10.
14. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health Related Data. 2014 Available at: https://www.ga4gh.org/ga4ghtoolkit/regulatoryandethics/ Accessed May 11, 2017.
15. United Nations General Assembly. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris, 1948.
16. Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Consent Policy. 2015 Available at: https://www.ga4gh.org/ga4ghtoolkit/regulatoryandethics/ Accessed May 11, 2017.
17. Thorogood, A., Deschênes St-Pierre, C., Knoppers, B.M., Substitute consent to data sharing: a way forward for international dementia research?. J Law Biosci 4 (2017), 133–158.
18. United Nations. Principles for Older Persons (Resolution 46/91). New York, 1991.
19. Council of the European Union. Regulation 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. 2014.
20. Shepherd, V., Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: the impact of research regulation on “evidence biased” medicine. BMC Med Ethics, 17, 2016, 55.
21. Ries, N.M., Thompson, K.A., Lowe, M., Including people with dementia in research: an analysis of Australian ethical and legal rules and recommendations for reform. J Bioeth Inq 14 (2017), 359–374.
22. Murphy, K., Jordan, F., Hunter, A., Cooney, A., Casey, D., Articulating the strategies for maximising the inclusion of people with dementia in qualitative research studies. Dementia (London) 14 (2015), 800–824.
23. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Paris, 2005.
24. International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). 1996.
25. International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Guideline on Genomic Sampling and Management of Genomic Data - E18. 2017.
26. Togni, E., Dierickx, K., Porteri, C., Participation in biobanks for research by incapacitated adults: review and discussion of current guidelines. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 29 (2014), 670–681.
27. United States Department of Health & Human Services. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Final rule. Fed Regist 82 (2017), 7149–7274.
28. Council of the European Union. Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC. 2016.
29. Rothstein, M.A., Knoppers, B.M., Harrell, H.L., Comparative approaches to biobanks and privacy. J Law Med Ethics 44 (2016), 161–172.
30. Deetjen, U., Meyer, E.T., Schroeder, R., Big Data for Advancing Dementia Research. 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris.
31. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 1 on the right to equal recognition before the law. 2014.
32. Stainton, T., Supported decision-making in Canada: principles, policy, and practice. Res Pract Intellect Dev Disabil 3 (2016), 1–11.
33. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (99) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults. 1999.
34. Derse, A.R., Spellecy, R., Ethical and regulatory considerations regarding enrollment of incompetent adults in more than minimal risk research as compared with children. Am J Bioeth 15 (2015), 68–69.
35. Dunn, L.B., Fisher, S.R., Hantke, M., Appelbaum, P.S., Dohan, D., Young, J.P., et al. “Thinking about it for somebody else”: Alzheimer's disease research and proxy decision makers’ translation of ethical principles into practice. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 21 (2013), 337–345.
36. Bravo, G., Kim, S.Y., Dubois, M.F., Cohen, C.A., Wildeman, S.M., Graham, J.E., Surrogate consent for dementia research: factors influencing five stakeholder groups from the SCORES study. IRB 35 (2013), 1–11.
37. De Vries, R., Ryan, K.A., Stanczyk, A., Appelbaum, P.S., Damschroder, L., Knopman, D.S., et al. Public's approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: cautious pragmatism. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 21 (2013), 364–372.
38. Alzheimer Europe. Informed Consent to Dementia Research. 2012, Alzheimer's Society, Luxembourg Available at: http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Ethics/Ethical-issues-in-practice/Ethics-ofdementia-research/Informed-consent-to-dementia-research Accessed May 11, 2017.
39. Bioethics Commission. Gray Matters (volume 2): Topics at the Intersection of Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society. 2015.
40. Porteri, C., Petrini, C., Research involving subjects with Alzheimer's disease in Italy: the possible role of family members. BMC Med Ethics, 16, 2015, 12.
41. Galeotti, F., Vanacore, N., Gainotti, S., Izzicupo, F., Menniti-Ippolito, F., Petrini, C., et al. How legislation on decisional capacity can negatively affect the feasibility of clinical trials in patients with dementia. Drugs Aging 29 (2012), 607–614.
42. United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. 1997.
43. Onyemelukwe, C., Neuroscience research involving older persons in Canada: some legal and neuroethical concerns. Med law 32 (2013), 389–422.
44. Pachana, N.A., Liddle, J., Peel, N.M., Beattie, E., Juang, C., Knight, B.G., Can we do better? Researchers’ experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus. J Alzheimers Dis 43 (2015), 701–707.
45. Prusaczyk, B., Cherney, S.M., Carpenter, C.R., DuBois, J.M., Informed consent to research with cognitively impaired adults: transdisciplinary challenges and opportunities. Clin Gerontol 40 (2017), 63–73.
46. Simpson, A.R., Barriers and facilitators to the consent process in a study of complex genetic factors. Am J Bioeth 15 (2015), 89–90.
47. Sweet, L., Adamis, D., Meagher, D.J., Davis, D., Currow, D.C., Bush, S.H., et al. Ethical challenges and solutions regarding delirium studies in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage 48 (2014), 259–271.
48. Diener, L., Hugonot-Diener, L., Alvino, S., Baeyens, J.P., Bone, M.F., Chirita, D., et al. Guidance synthesis. Medical research for and with older people in Europe: proposed ethical guidance for good clinical practice: ethical considerations. J Nutr Health Aging 17 (2013), 625–627.
49. Nishimura, A., Carey, J., Erwin, P.J., Tilburt, J.C., Murad, M.H., McCormick, J.B., Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics, 14, 2013, 28.
50. Dewing, J., Process consent and research with older persons living with dementia. Res Ethics Rev 4 (2008), 59–64.
51. Black, B.S., Wechsler, M., Fogarty, L., Decision Making for participation in dementia research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 21 (2013), 355–363.
52. Kolanowski, A., Mulhall, P., Yevchak, A., Hill, N., Fick, D., The triple challenge of recruiting older adults with dementia and high medical acuity in skilled nursing facilities. J Nurs Scholarsh 45 (2013), 397–404.
53. Heesters, A.M., Buchman, D.Z., Anstey, K.W., Bell, J.A., Russell, B.J., Wright, L., Power of attorney for research: the need for a clear legal mechanism. Public Health Ethics 10 (2016), 100–104.
54. Wood, F., Prout, H., Bayer, A., Duncan, D., Nuttall, J., Hood, K., et al. Consent, including advanced consent, of older adults to research in care homes: a qualitative study of stakeholders’ views in South Wales. Trials, 14, 2013, 247.
55. Gennet, É., Kressig, R.W., Chapitre 7. Les personnes âgées vulnérables dans les recherches biomédicales: quelles réponses du droit européen? [Vulnerable older people in biomedical research: how does European law respond?]. J Int Bioethique 27 (2016), 115–144.
56. Andorno, R., Gennet, E., Jongsma, K., Elger, B., Integrating advance research directives into the European legal framework. Eur J Health Law 23 (2016), 158–173.
57. Jongsma, K., van de Vathorst, S., Advance directives in dementia research: the opinions and arguments of clinical researchers− an empirical study. Res Ethics 11 (2015), 4–14.
58. Buller, T., Advance consent, critical interests and dementia research. J Med Ethics 41 (2015), 701–707.
59. Warner, J., Nomani, E., Giving consent in dementia research. Lancet 372 (2008), 183–185.
60. Bravo, G., Arcand, M., Blanchette, D., Boire-Lavigne, A.M., Dubois, M.F., Guay, M., et al. Promoting advance planning for health care and research among older adults: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Ethics, 13, 2012, 1.
61. Wildeman, S., Dunn, L.B., Onyemelukwe, C., Incapacity in Canada: review of laws and policies on research involving decisionally impaired adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 21 (2013), 314–325.
62. Yarborough, M., Inconsistent approaches to research involving cognitively impaired adults: why the broad view of substituted judgment is our best guide. Am J Bioeth 15 (2015), 66–67.
63. Carney, T., Supported decision-making for people with cognitive impairments: an Australian perspective?. Laws 4 (2015), 37–59.
64. Harding, R., The rise of statutory wills and the limits of best interests decision-making in inheritance. Mod Law Rev 78 (2015), 945–970.
65. Bravo, G., Wildeman, S., Dubois, M.F., Kim, S.Y., Cohen, C., Graham, J., et al. Substitute consent practices in the face of uncertainty: a survey of Canadian researchers in aging. Int Psychogeriatr 25 (2013), 1821–1830.
66. Dunn, L.B., Palmer, B.W., When does therapeutic misconception affect surrogates’ or subjects’ decision making about whether to participate in dementia research?. AMA J Ethics, 19, 2017, 678.
67. Kim, S.Y.H., Kim, H.M., Ryan, K.A., Appelbaum, P.S., Knopman, D.S., Damschroder, L., et al. How important is “accuracy” of surrogate decision-making for research participation?. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e54790.
68. Arstein-Kerslake, A., Flynn, E., The general comment on Article 12 of the convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: a roadmap for equality before the law. Int J Human Rights 20 (2016), 471–490.
69. Palmer, B.W., Harmell, A.L., Pinto, L.L., Dunn, L.B., Kim, S.Y., Golshan, S., et al. Determinants of capacity to consent to research on Alzheimer's disease. Clin Gerontol 40 (2017), 24–34.
70. Trachsel, M., Hermann, H., Biller-Andorno, N., Cognitive fluctuations as a challenge for the assessment of decision-making capacity in patients with dementia. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 30 (2015), 360–363.
71. Palmer, B.W., Savla, G.N., Roesch, S.C., Jeste, D.V., Changes in capacity to consent over time in patients involved in psychiatric research. Br J Psychiatry 202 (2013), 454–458.
72. Palmer, B.W., Ryan, K.A., Kim, H.M., Karlawish, J.H., Appelbaum, P.S., Kim, S.Y., Neuropsychological correlates of capacity determinations in Alzheimer disease: implications for assessment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 21 (2013), 373–381.
73. Kim, S.Y.H., Karlawish, J.H., Kim, H.M., Wall, I.F., Bozoki, A.C., Appelbaum, P.S., Preservation of the capacity to appoint a proxy decision maker implications for dementia research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 68 (2011), 214–220.
74. Seaman, J.B., Terhorst, L., Gentry, A., Hunsaker, A., Parker, L.S., Lingler, J.H., Psychometric properties of a decisional capacity screening tool for individuals contemplating participation in Alzheimer's disease research. J Alzheimers Dis 46 (2015), 1–9.
75. Duron, E., Boulay, M., Vidal, J.S., El Bchiri, J., Fraisse, M.L., Rigaud, A.S., et al. Capacity to consent to biomedical research's evaluation among older cognitively impaired patients. A study to validate the University of California Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent questionnaire in French among older cognitively impaired patients. J Nutr Health Aging 17 (2013), 385–389.
76. Appelbaum, P.S., Grisso, T., MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR). 2001, Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange, Sarasota, Florida.
77. Lingler, J.H., Seaman, J.B., Parker, L.S., False positives, outliers, and other considerations in decisional capacity screening for research consent. J Alzheimers Dis 46 (2015), 15–16.
78. Jeste, D.V., Palmer, B.W., Appelbaum, P.S., Golshan, S., Glorioso, D., Dunn, L.B., et al. A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64 (2007), 966–974.