Rebecca Johnson’s research while affiliated with Princeton University and other places

Background As a result of caring for a person with dementia, caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be uniquely aware of public stigma for persons with AD. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare self-identified caregivers and non-caregivers’ expectations of public stigma experienced by persons living with dementia. Methods Analysis of data from a survey of 910 adults (median age = 49 years) who read a vignette about a man with mild stage dementia. Multivariable ordered logistic regression was used to examine how AD caregiver status associated with responses on a modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer’s Disease Scale (FS-ADS). Results 9%(n = 82) of respondents self-identified as a current or former primary caregiver of a person with AD, about the same as the national estimate of informal caregivers (8.8%). Compared to non-caregivers, AD caregivers were more likely to report stronger reactions on all seven domains of the FS-ADS (all p < 0.05). As compared to AD caregivers with less factual knowledge about caregiving, AD caregivers with more knowledge expected the person with dementia to experience less social distance (p < 0.05). In addition, female AD caregivers reported fewer negative aesthetic attributions than male AD caregivers (p < 0.05). Conclusion Compared to non-caregivers, respondents who self-identified as an AD caregiver gave responses that suggest they perceived more stigma of dementia among members of the public. Their reactions were attenuated by AD knowledge and being female. The findings have key implications for interventions to reduce AD stigma.

Many studies show that caregivers for those with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) are disproportionately female, but few studies have investigated how public attitudes influence this gender disparity. We analyzed secondary data from an experimental study of public reactions to AD dementia. Analysis included 944 respondents who read a vignette about a man with mild stage dementia and completed a modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer’s Disease Scale (FS-ADS), which assesses 7 domains of stigma. Multivariable ordered logistic regression compared men and women on FS-ADS ratings. Women were less likely than men to endorse stronger negative aesthetic attributions (OR=0.75) and negative feelings (OR=0.76) and more likely to endorse stronger feelings of pity (OR=1.33; all p<0.05). No other differences were observed in FS-ADS domains (all p>0.05). The findings offer insights into relationships between gender and AD stigma, which may influence who is willing to become a caregiver for persons with AD and related dementias.

The general public’s views can influence whether people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) experience stigma. The purpose of this study was to understand what characteristics in the general public are associated with stigmatizing attributions. A random sample of adults from the general population read a vignette about a man with mild Alzheimer’s disease dementia and completed a modified Family Stigma in Alzheimer’s Disease Scale (FS-ADS). Multivariable ordered logistic regressions were used to examine relationships between personal characteristics and FS-ADS ratings. Older respondents expected that persons with AD would receive less support (OR=0.82, p=.001), have social interactions limited by others (OR=1.13, p=.04), and face institutional discrimination (OR=1.13, p=.04). Females reported stronger feelings of pity (OR=1.57, p=.03) and weaker reactions to negative aesthetic features (OR=0.67, p=.05). Those who believed strongly that AD was a mental illness rated symptoms more severely (OR=1.78, p=.007). Identifiable characteristics and beliefs in the general public are related to stigmatizing attributions toward AD. To reduce AD stigma, public health messaging campaigns can tailor information to subpopulations, recognizable by their age, gender, and beliefs.

The prevailing “segregated model” for understanding clinical research sharply separates it from clinical care and subjects it to extensive regulations and guidelines. This approach is based on the fact that clinical research relies on procedures and methods—research biopsies, blinding, randomization, fixed treatment protocols, placebos—that pose risks and burdens to participants in order to collect data that might benefit all patients. Reliance on these methods raises the potential for exploitation and unfairness, and thus points to the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent. In contrast, it is widely assumed that clinical care does not raise these ethical concerns because it is designed to promote the best interests of individual patients. The segregation of clinical research from clinical care has been largely effective at protecting research participants. At the same time, this approach ignores the fact that several aspects of standard clinical care, such as clinician training and scheduling, also pose some risks and burdens to present patients for the benefit of all patients. We argue that recently proposed learning health care systems offer a way to address this concern, and better protect patients, by developing integrated review and consent procedures. Specifically, current approaches base the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent on whether an activity is categorized as clinical research or clinical care. An ethically sounder approach, which could be incorporated into learning health care systems, would be to base the need for independent ethical review and more extensive informed consent on the extent to which an activity poses risks to present patients for the benefit of all patients.

Phase I trials, which test the safety and toxicity of an investigational agent, are a vital stage of drug development. Many of these trials enroll healthy participants and recent data suggest that some of the healthy participants treat phase I research participation as a form of work. This chapter examines three facets of the shift from research participation as a form of altruism to research participation as a form of work. First, I set out three features of trial participation that support labeling healthy participants’ enrollment in phase I research as a form of work. Second, I ask: is phase I research participation similar to risky occupations such as firefighting or coal mining, or is phase I research participation similar to non-risky, low-wage occupations such as janitorial work? To answer this question, I draw upon original data from a systematic review of 475 phase I trials with healthy participants that measures the risk level of the trials. Third, once I have found the appropriate “occupational bucket” for phase I work, I briefly examine the implications for contested questions within research ethics, such as the information persons need prior to consent, rights of withdrawal and compensation for injury, and efforts to increase the transparency of trial results. I argue that conceiving of phase I research as a form of work can bolster the rights of research participants in some of these areas and that bioethicists ought to be less wary of this shift in research participants’ roles.

Background: The classification of Alzheimer's disease is undergoing a significant transformation. Researchers have created the category of "preclinical Alzheimer's," characterized by biomarker pathology rather than observable symptoms. Diagnosis and treatment at this stage could allow preventing Alzheimer's cognitive decline. While many commentators have worried that persons given a preclinical Alzheimer's label will be subject to stigma, little research exists to inform whether the stigma attached to the label of clinical Alzheimer's will extend to a preclinical disorder that has the label of "Alzheimer's" but lacks the symptoms or expected prognosis of the clinical form. Research questions: The present study sought to correct this gap by examining the foundations of stigma directed at Alzheimer's. It asked: do people form stigmatizing reactions to the label "Alzheimer's disease" itself or to the condition's observable impairments? How does the condition's prognosis modify these reactions? Methods: Data were collected through a web-based experiment with N = 789 adult members of the U.S. general population (median age = 49, interquartile range, 32-60, range = 18-90). Participants were randomized through a 3 × 3 design to read one of 9 vignettes depicting signs and symptoms of mild stage dementia that varied the disease label ("Alzheimer's" vs. "traumatic brain injury" vs. no label) and prognosis (improve vs. static vs. worsen symptoms). Four stigma outcomes were assessed: discrimination, negative cognitive attributions, negative emotions, and social distance. Results: The study found that the Alzheimer's disease label was generally not associated with more stigmatizing reactions. In contrast, expecting the symptoms to get worse, regardless of which disease label those symptoms received, resulted in higher levels of perceived structural discrimination, higher pity, and greater social distance. Conclusion: These findings suggest that stigma surrounding pre-clinical Alzheimer's categories will depend highly on the expected prognosis attached to the label. They also highlight the need for models of Alzheimer's-directed stigma that incorporate attributions about the condition's mutability.

Background/aims: Tragedies suggest that phase I trials in healthy participants may be highly risky. This possibility raises concern that phase I trials may exploit healthy participants to develop new therapies, making the translation of scientific discoveries ethically worrisome. Yet, few systematic data evaluate this concern. This article systematically reviews the risks of published phase I trials in healthy participants and evaluates trial features associated with increased risks. Methods: Data on adverse events and trial characteristics were extracted from all phase I trials published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and PsycINFO (1 January 2008-1 October 2012). Inclusion criteria were phase I studies that enrolled healthy participants of any age, provided quantitative adverse event data, and documented the number of participants enrolled. Exclusion criteria included (1) adverse event data not in English, (2) a "challenge" study in which participants were administered a pathogen, and (3) no quantitative information about serious adverse events. Data on the incidence of adverse events, duration of adverse event monitoring, trial agent tested, participant demographics, and trial location were extracted. Results: In 475 trials enrolling 27,185 participants, there was a median of zero serious adverse events (interquartile range = 0-0) and a median of zero severe adverse events (interquartile range = 0-0) per 1000 treatment group participants/day of monitoring. The rate of mild and moderate adverse events was a median of 1147.19 per 1000 participants (interquartile range = 651.52-1730.9) and 46.07 per 1000 participants/adverse event monitoring day (interquartile range = 17.80-77.19). Conclusion: We conclude that phase I trials do cause mild and moderate harms but pose low risks of severe harm. To ensure that this conclusion also applies to unpublished trials, it is important to increase trial transparency.

Many research projects rely on human biological materials and some of these projects generate revenue. Recently, it has been argued that investigators have a moral claim to share in the revenue generated by these projects, whereas persons who provide the biological material have no such claim (Truog, Kesselheim, and Joffe 2012). In this paper, we critically analyze this view and offer a positive proposal for why tissue providers have a moral claim to benefit. Focusing on payment as a form of benefit, we argue that research is a joint project and propose a contribution principle for paying participants in those joint projects. We distinguish between contributions that shape a project’s revenue generating properties, grounding a claim to payment, and contributions that fail to ground such a claim. We conclude, contrary to existing arguments and practices, that some tissue providers have a moral claim to payment beyond compensation for risk and burden. This conclusion suggests that investigators, institutions, and sponsors should reconsider the fairness of their current practices.

Dementia raises many ethical issues. The present review, taking note of the fact that the stages of dementia raise distinct ethical issues, focuses on three issues associated with stages of dementia's progression: (1) how the emergence of preclinical and asymptomatic but at-risk categories for dementia creates complex questions about preventive measures, risk disclosure, and protection from stigma and discrimination; (2) how despite efforts at dementia prevention, important research continues to investigate ways to alleviate clinical dementia's symptoms, and requires additional human subjects protections to ethically enroll persons with dementia; and (3) how in spite of research and prevention efforts, persons continue to need to live with dementia. This review highlights two major themes. First is how expanding the boundaries of dementias such as Alzheimer's to include asymptomatic but at-risk persons generate new ethical questions. One promising way to address these questions is to take an integrated approach to dementia ethics, which can include incorporating ethics-related data collection into the design of a dementia research study itself. Second is the interdisciplinary nature of ethical questions related to dementia, from health policy questions about insurance coverage for long-term care to political questions about voting, driving, and other civic rights and privileges to economic questions about balancing an employer's right to a safe and productive workforce with an employee's rights to avoid discrimination on the basis of their dementia risk. The review highlights these themes and emerging ethical issues in dementia.