Seeking assent and respecting dissent in dementia research.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
The American journal of geriatric psychiatry: official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.52). 01/2010; 18(1):77-85. DOI: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181bd1de2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Obtaining assent and respecting dissent are widely adopted safeguards when conducting dementia research involving individuals who lack consent capacity, but there is no consensus on how assent and dissent should be defined or what procedures should be used regarding them. Our objective was to provide recommendations on these issues based on the opinions of knowledgeable key informants.
Cross-sectional qualitative research.
University research institutions.
Forty informants, including 1) nationally known experts on dementia and research ethics, 2) dementia researchers, and 3) dementia caregivers and advocates.
Semistructured individual and focus group interviews, audio recorded, and transcribed for content analysis.
Assent and dissent should be defined broadly and based on an assessment of how adults who lack consent capacity can express or indicate their preferences verbally, behaviorally, or emotionally. Assent requires the ability to indicate a meaningful choice and at least a minimal level of understanding. Assent should be required whenever an individual has the ability to assent, and dissent should be binding if it is unequivocal or sustained after an effort to relieve concerns and/or distress. Standards for seeking assent and respecting dissent should not be linked to the risks or potential benefits of a study. Lacking the ability to assent and/or dissent should not automatically preclude research participation.
Obtaining assent and respecting dissent from individuals who lack consent capacity for dementia research allows them to participate, to the extent possible, in the consent process. Assent and dissent are important independent ethical constructs.

Download full-text


Available from: Betty S Black, Feb 13, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: People in extraordinary situations are vulnerable. As research participants, they are additionally threatened by abuse or exploitation and the possibility of harm through research. To protect people against these threats, informed consent as an instrument of self-determination has been introduced. Self-determination requires autonomous persons, who voluntarily make decisions based on their values and morals. However, in nursing research, this requirement cannot always be met. Advanced age, chronic illness, co-morbidity and frailty are reasons for dependencies. These in turn lead to limited abilities or opportunities for decision-making and self-determination. Exclusion of vulnerable people from research projects would disadvantage them by not covering their needs, which would violate the ethical principles of justice and beneficence. Commonly, vulnerability is attributed to social groups. The consequence for individuals, attributed as belonging to such a vulnerable group, is that the principles of respect for autonomy, justice and beneficence are subordinated to the principle of non-maleficence, understood as avoiding the risk to cause more harm than good. In addition, group-specific attribution could lead to stigmatizing because labelling a person as deviation from a norm violates integrity. For clinical nursing research, the question arises how the protection of vulnerable people could be granted without compromising ethical principles. The concept of relational ethics provides a possible approach. It defines vulnerability as the relation between a person's health status and the extent to which this person is dependent on the researcher and the research context. Vulnerability is not attributed solely to a person but to a situation, meaning the person is viewed in context. By combining vulnerability as a context-related and situational concept with existing approaches of informed consent, the different ethical principles can be balanced and preserved at every step of the research process.
    Nursing Ethics 02/2014; 21(7). DOI:10.1177/0969733013518448 · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Identifying older emergency department (ED) patients with clinical features associated with adverse postdischarge outcomes may lead to improved clinical reasoning and better targeting for preventative interventions. Previous studies have used single-country samples to identify limited sets of determinants for a limited number of proxy outcomes. The objective of this study was to identify and compare geriatric syndromes that influence the probability of postdischarge outcomes among older ED patients from a multinational context. A multinational prospective cohort study of ED patients aged 75 years or older was conducted. A total of 13 ED sites from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Iceland, India, and Sweden participated. Patients who were expected to die within 24 hours or did not speak the native language were excluded. Of the 2,475 patients approached for inclusion, 2,282 (92.2%) were enrolled. Patients were assessed at ED admission with the interRAI ED Contact Assessment, a geriatric ED assessment. Outcomes were examined for patients admitted to a hospital ward (62.9%, n = 1,436) or discharged to a community setting (34.0%, n = 775) after an ED visit. Overall, 3% of patients were lost to follow-up. Hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge to higher level of care was recorded for patients admitted to a hospital ward. Any ED or hospital use within 28 days of discharge was recorded for patients discharged to a community setting. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were used to describe determinants using standard and multilevel logistic regression. A multi-country model including living alone (OR = 1.78, p ≤ 0.01), informal caregiver distress (OR = 1.69, p = 0.02), deficits in ambulation (OR = 1.94, p ≤ 0.01), poor self-report (OR = 1.84, p ≤ 0.01), and traumatic injury (OR = 2.18, p ≤ 0.01) best described older patients at risk of longer hospital lengths of stay. A model including recent ED visits (OR = 2.10, p ≤ 0.01), baseline functional impairment (OR = 1.68, p ≤ 0.01), and anhedonia (OR = 1.73, p ≤ 0.01) best described older patients at risk of proximate repeat hospital use. A sufficiently accurate and generalizable model to describe the risk of discharge to higher levels of care among admitted patients was not achieved. Despite markedly different health care systems, the probability of long hospital lengths of stay and repeat hospital use among older ED patients is detectable at the multinational level with moderate accuracy. This study demonstrates the potential utility of incorporating common geriatric clinical features in routine clinical examination and disposition planning for older patients in EDs.
    Academic Emergency Medicine 04/2014; 21(4):422-433. DOI:10.1111/acem.12353 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The high rates of medical illness in older people, the high prevalence of cognitive disorder in the elderly, and the high prevalence of frailty in late life raise issues that occur infrequently in the care of younger adults. This article discusses the ethical issues that commonly arise in the setting of these medical and psychiatric morbidities, and emphasizes the need for clinicians and researchers to be knowledgeable about the belief systems and values of individual patients, of their carers when relevant, of themselves, and of research participants.
    International Review of Psychiatry 06/2010; 22(3):267-73. DOI:10.3109/09540261.2010.484016 · 1.80 Impact Factor