Article

Surrogate consent for dementia research A national survey of older Americans

Bioethics Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Neurology (Impact Factor: 8.3). 02/2009; 72(2):149-55. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000339039.18931.a2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Research in novel therapies for Alzheimer disease (AD) relies on persons with AD as research subjects. Because AD impairs decisional capacity, informed consent often must come from surrogates, usually close family members. But policies for surrogate consent for research remain unsettled after decades of debate.
We designed a survey module for a random subsample (n = 1,515) of the 2006 wave of the Health and Retirement Study, a biennial survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans aged 51 and older. The participants answered questions regarding one of four randomly assigned surrogate-based research (SBR) scenarios: lumbar puncture study, drug randomized control study, vaccine study, and gene transfer study. Each participant answered three questions: whether our society should allow family surrogate consent, whether one would want to participate in the research, and whether one would allow one's surrogate some or complete leeway to override stated personal preferences.
Most respondents stated that our society should allow family surrogate consent for SBR (67.5% to 82.5%, depending on the scenario) and would themselves want to participate in SBR (57.4% to 79.7%). Most would also grant some or complete leeway to their surrogates (54.8% to 66.8%), but this was true mainly of those willing to participate. There was a trend toward lower willingness to participate in SBR among those from ethnic or racial minority groups.
Family surrogate consent-based dementia research is broadly supported by older Americans. Willingness to allow leeway to future surrogates needs to be studied further for its ethical significance for surrogate-based research policy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Kenneth Langa, Aug 25, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
108 Views
  • Source
    • "Alternatively, models of informed consent or advanced directives should find ways to increase consistency between the proxies and the patients (Kim et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The increasing number of older adults with dementia is a large and growing public health problem. Alzheimer's disease, the prevailing form of dementia, is projected to quadruple worldwide. To date, the care and social integration of individuals with dementia is complicated by limited collaborations between biomedicine and other disciplines. The objective of this paper is therefore to reflect on the orientation of biomedicine with regard to the science of dementia, and to articulate a path for moving forward. Methods: The authors drew upon, and expanded, the insights of an interdisciplinary, international workshop entitled 'Bioethics and the Science of Aging: The Case of Dementia' held in October 2012 at the University of California in Berkeley.Results: The care of individuals with dementia compels solid interdisciplinary collaborations. There are several issues affecting the care of individuals with dementia: (1) an evolving definition of dementia; (2) the ambiguous benefits of the diagnosis of dementia; (3) ethical conflicts concerning consent processes and clinical trials; and (4) a limited understanding of the perspective of the person with dementia.Conclusion: We argue that it is time for a renewed dialogue between biomedicine and other disciplines -- particularly public health, the social sciences, the medical humanities and bioethics. This interdisciplinary dialogue would facilitate a process of self-reflection within biomedicine. This dialogue will also provide the foundation for equitable public health interventions and will further prioritize the values and preferences of individuals with dementia, as well as their care and social integration.
    Aging and Mental Health 11/2013; 18(3). DOI:10.1080/13607863.2013.837149 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Karlawish and colleagues reported the percent agreeing with both statements (self and in general for AD patients, charge and in general for proxies). § § § Kim et al. 2009 and Ayalon 2009 rely on the same data but report slightly different numbers due to methodology. We use the numbers reported by Kim et al. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Current practice relies on surrogates to enroll incapacitated adults in research. Yet, it is unclear to what extent this practice protects adults who have lost the ability to consent for themselves. To address this question, we conducted two literature searches to identify articles which report empirical data on three issues central to protecting adults who have lost the ability to consent: (1) adults' willingness to participate in research should they lose the ability to consent; (2) adults' willingness to allow a surrogate to make research decisions for them; and (3) the extent to which surrogates' enrollment decisions are consistent with their charges' preferences and values. These searches identified 21 articles, representing 20 distinct datasets. The data indicate that many adults are willing to participate in research should they lose the ability to consent, and many are willing to allow their family members to make research decisions for them if they become incapacitated. The data also raise concern that surrogates may be making research enrollment decisions that, in some cases, are inconsistent with their charges' preferences and values. These findings suggest that modifications to current practice should be considered to better protect adults who have lost the ability to consent. One option would be to require, in addition to surrogate permission and subject assent, sufficient evidence that enrollment is consistent with the individual's preferences and values.
    Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 04/2012; 7(2):37-50. DOI:10.1525/jer.2012.7.2.37 · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As one of the faster growing segments of the population, over 70 million American citizens will be considered elderly by 2030 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2007). The growth of this group is unprecedented in American history, owing in part to advances in health care research having a positive impact on longevity. Inevitably older adults will likely be more involved in research than ever before. Ethical protection becomes a principal concern when a group, such as the elderly, is identified as vulnerable. This article reviews concepts of autonomy, beneficence, and justice in relation to geriatric research and discusses ethical risks with case studies.
Show more