Article

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: 4.24). 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

Full-text

Available from: Betty S Black, Feb 13, 2014
    • "For example, children may agree to be involved in drawing or photography activities, but not interviews. When considering dissent among adult patients with dementia, Black et al. (2010) note that dissent does not require a reason or justification, and can be expressed at any time by participants. They urge respect for dissent, regardless of where it occurs within a project. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Participatory approaches to engaging in research with young children place a great deal of emphasis on children's rights to choose whether or not they wish to be involved. A number of recent studies have reported a range of strategies both to inform children of their research rights and to establish options for checking children's understanding of these rights throughout the research process. This paper seeks to move the debate around children's informed agreement to participate forward by considering the ways in which children might indicate their dissent – their desire not to participate – at various stages of the research process. Drawing on examples from Iceland and Australia, involving children aged two–six years, the paper explores children's verbal and non-verbal interactions and the ways in which these have been used, and interpreted, to indicate dissent. Reflection on these examples raises a number of questions and identifies several tensions, as well as offering some suggestions for ways in which researchers can recognise children's decisions to opt out of research participation.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2012 · International Journal of Early Years Education
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective nonpharmacological interventions are needed to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms and to improve quality of life for the 5.3 million Americans affected by dementia. The purpose of this study was to test the effect of a storytelling program, TimeSlips, on communication, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia. A quasi-experimental, two-group, repeated measures design was used to compare persons with dementia who were assigned to the twice-weekly, 6-week TimeSlips intervention group (n = 28) or usual care group (n = 28) at baseline and postintervention at Weeks 7 and 10. Outcome measures included the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version, the Functional Assessment of Communication Skills, the Quality of Life-Alzheimer's Disease, and the Observed Emotion Rating Scale (this last measure was collected also at Weeks 3 and 6 during TimeSlips for the treatment group and during mealtime for the control group). Compared with the control group, the treatment group exhibited significantly higher pleasure at Week 3 (p < .001), Week 6 (p < .001), and Week 7 (p < .05). Small to moderate treatment effects were found for Week 7 social communication (d = .49) and basic needs communication (d = .43). A larger effect was found for pleasure at Week 7 (d = .58). As expected, given the engaging nature of the TimeSlips creative storytelling intervention, analyses revealed increased positive affect during and at 1 week postintervention. In addition, perhaps associated with the intervention's reliance on positive social interactions and verbal communication, participants evidenced improved communication skills. However, more frequent dosing and booster sessions of TimeSlips may be needed to show significant differences between treatment and control groups on long-term effects and other outcomes.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2010 · Nursing research
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Apr 2010
Show more