Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-5
Inclusion of people living with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias who lack a study partner in social research: Ethical considerations from a qualitative evidence synthesis
Because use of a study partner (proxy decision-maker) to give informed consent on behalf of someone living with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) is common in nearly all clinical research, people living with ADRD who lack a study partner are regularly excluded from participation. Social research presents different opportunities and risks than clinical research. We argue that guidelines developed for the latter may be unduly restrictive for social research and, further, that the automatic exclusion of people living with ADRD presents separate ethical challenges by failing to support extant decision-making capacity and by contributing to underrepresentation in research.
Purpose
The study objective was to identify key components related to including cognitively vulnerable participants who lack a study partner in social research.
Research design/Study sample
We conducted an adaptive qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) and subsequent content analysis on 49 articles addressing capacity and research consent for potentially cognitively compromised individuals, to include people living with ADRD, who lack a study partner.
Results
We identified four major topic areas: defining competency, capacity, and consent; aspects of informed consent; strategies to assess comprehension of risks associated with social research; and risks versus benefits.
Conclusions
Based on findings, we suggest new and ethically appropriate ways to determine capacity to consent to social research, make consent processes accessible to a population experiencing cognitive challenges, and consider the risks of excluding a growing population from research that could benefit millions.
AbramovitchR.FinstadM.SilberfeldM. (1993). Preliminary report on informed consent for mental capacity assessments. Canadian Journal on Aging, 12(3), 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980800013751
2.
AdamisD.TreloarA.MartinF. C.MacDonaldA. J. (2010). Ethical research in delirium: Arguments for including decisionally incapacitated subjects. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9120-y
3.
AppelbaumP. S.GrissoT. (2001). MacArthur competence assessment tool for clinical research (MacCAT-CR). Professional Resource Press.
4.
ArtnakK. E. (1997). Informed consent in the elderly: Assessing decisional capacity. Seminars in Perioperative Nursing, 6(1), 59–64.
5.
AssociationA. S. (2004). Research consent for cognitively impaired adults: Recommendations for institutional review boards and investigators. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 18(3), 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wad.0000137520.23370.56
6.
AstellH.LeeJ.-H.SankaranS. (2013). Review of capacity assessments and recommendations for examining capacity. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 126(1383), 38–48.
7.
BaergenR. (2002). Assessing the competence assessment tool. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 13(2), 160–164.
8.
BartlettR.O’ConnorD. (2007). From personhood to citizenship: Broadening the lens for dementia practice and research. Journal of Aging Studies, 21(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2006.09.002
9.
BeattieE. (2009). Research participation of individuals with dementia: Decisional capacity, informed consent, and considerations for nurse investigators. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2(2), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20090401-01
10.
BerlingerN.JenningsB.WolfS. M. (2013). The Hastings Center guidelines for treatment decision-making and care near the end of life, revised and (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199974566.001.0001
11.
BlackB. S.KassN. E.FogartyL. A.RabinsP. V. (2007). Informed consent for dementia research: The study enrollment encounter. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 29(4), 7–14.
12.
BlackB. S.BrandtJ.RabinsP. V.SamusQ. M.SteeleC. D.LyketsosC. G.RosenblattA. (2008). Predictors of providing informed consent or assent for research participation in assisted living residents. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e318157cabd
13.
BlackB. S.WechslerM.FogartyL. (2013). Decision making for participation in dementia research. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(4), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.009
ChristensenK.HarounA.SchneidermanL. J.JesteD. V. (1995). Decision-making capacity for informed consent in the older population. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 23(3), 353–365.
ClareL.MartyrA.HendersonC.GambleL.MatthewsF. E.QuinnC.NelisS. M.RustedJ.ThomJ.KnappM.HartN.VictorC. (2020). Living alone with mild-to-moderate dementia: Findings from the IDEAL cohort. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 78(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-200638
DerenzoE. G.ConleyR. R.LoveR. (1998). Assessment of capacity to give consent to research participation: State-of-the-art and beyond. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, 1(1), 66.
DuboisJ. M.Banteabd HadleyH. W. B. (2011). Ethics in psychiatric research: A review of 25 years of NIH-funded empirical research projects. AJOB Primary Research, 2(4), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.631514
25.
DunnL. B.LindamerL. A.PalmerB. W.GolshanS.SchneidermanL. J.JesteD. V. (2002). Improving understanding of research consent in middle-aged and elderly patients with psychotic disorders. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10(2), 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019442-200203000-00005
26.
DunnL. B.PalmerB. W.ApplebaumP. S.SaksE. R.AaronsG. A.JesteD. V. (2007). Prevalence and correlates of adequate performance on a measure of abilities related to decisional capacity: Differences among three standards for the MacCAT-CR in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 89(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2006.08.005
27.
ErR. A.SehiraltiM. (2014). Comparing assessments of the decision-making competencies of psychiatric inpatients as provided by physicians, nurses, relatives and an assessment tool. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(7), 453–457. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100928
28.
FarrellT. W.WideraE.RosenbergL.RubinC. D.NaikA. D.BraunU.TorkeA.LiI.VitaleC.ShegaJ.Ethics, Clinical Practice and Models of Care, & Public Policy Committees of the American Geriatrics Society (2017). AGS position statement: making medical treatment decisions for unbefriended older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 65(1), 14–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14586
29.
FlemmingK.BoothA.GarsideR.TunçalpÖ.NoyesJ. (2019). Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: Clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000882. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882
30.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
GilbertT.BosquetA.Thomas-AntérionC.BonnefoyM.Le SauxO. (2017). Assessing capacity to consent for research in cognitively impaired older patients. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2007(12), 1553–1563. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S141905
33.
GoodmanC.BaronN. L.MachenI.StevensonE.EvansC.DaviesS. L.IliffeS. (2011). Culture, consent, costs and care homes: enabling older people with dementia to participate in research. Aging & Mental Health, 15(4), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2010.543659
GrimshawJ. (2010). A guide to knowledge synthesis. A knowledge synthesis chapter. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41382.html
36.
GuinnD. E. (2002). Mental competence, caregivers, and the process of consent: Research involving Alzheimer’s patients or others with decreasing mental capacity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 11(13), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180102113041
37.
HeggestadA. K. T.NortvedtP.SletteboÅ. (2013). The importance of moral sensitivity when including persons with dementia in qualitative research. Nursing Ethics, 20(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733012455564
38.
HigginsP. (2013). Involving people with dementia in research. Nursing Times, 109(28), 20–23.
39.
HighD. M.PostS. G.WhitehouseP. J. (1994a). Introduction (to 6 articles and a position paper on ethical and legal issues in Alzheimer disease research). Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 8(Suppl. 4), 1. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002093-199424003-00008
40.
HighD. M.WhitehouseP. J.PostS. G.BergL. (1994b). Guidelines for addressing ethical and legal issues in Alzheimer disease research: A position paper. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 8(Suppl. 4), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002093-199424003-00008
41.
HoughtonC.MurphyK.MeehanB.ThomasJ.BrookerD.CaseyD. (2017). From screening to synthesis: Using Nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(5–6), 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13443
42.
JanofskyJ. S. (1990). Assessing competency in the elderly. Geriatrics, 45(10), 45–78.
43.
JeffersonA. L.LambeS.MoserD. J.ByerlyL. K.OzonoffA.KarlawishJ. H. (2008). Decisional capacity for research participation in individuals with mild cognitive ompairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 56(7), 1236–1243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01752.x
44.
JesteD. V.PalmerB. W.AppelbaumP. S.GolshanS.GloriosoD.DunnL. B.KimK.MeeksT.KraemerH. C. (2007). A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64(8), 966966–966974. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.8.966
45.
KarlawishJ.CaryM.MoelterS. T.SiderowfA.SulloE.XieS.WeintraubD. (2013). Cognitive impairment and PD patients’ capacity to consent to research. Neurology, 81(9), 801–807. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182a05ba5
46.
JKeadyLCHydénAJohnsonCSwarbrick (Eds.). (2017). Social research methods in dementia studies: Inclusion and innovation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315517490
47.
KimS. Y.CaineE. D.CurrierG. W.LeiboviciA.RyanJ. M. (2001). Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer’s disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(5), 712–717. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi10.1176/appi.ajp.158.5.712
48.
LangeM. M.RogersW.DoddsS. (2013). Vulnerability in research ethics: A way forward. Bioethics, 27(6), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12032
49.
LargentE. A.HeyS. P.HarkinsK.HoffmanA. K.JoffeS.LimaJ. C.LondonJ. AKarlawishJ. (2020). Ethical and regulatory issues for embedded pragmatic trials involving people living with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68(Suppl 2), S37–S42. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16620
MarsonD. C. (2001). Loss of competency in Alzheimer's disease: Conceptual and psychometric approaches. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24(2–3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00064-4
52.
MayoA. M.WallhagenM. I. (2009). Considerations of informed consent and decision-making competence in older adults with cognitive impairment. Research in Gerontological Nursing, 2(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20090401-08
53.
MeulenbroekO.Vernooij-DassenM.KesselsR. P. C.GraffM. J. L.SjögrenM. J. C.SchalkB. W. M.RikkertM. O.Hoogsteen-OssewaardeM. E.ClaassenJ. A. H. R.MelisR. J. F.Olde RikkertM. G. M. (2010). Informed consent in dementia research. Legislation, theoretical concepts and how to assess capacity to consent. European Geriatric Medicine, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2010.01.009
54.
MoodieP.WrightM. (1997). Medical research and Alzheimer’s disease: A study of the hazards of conducting research on the incompetent patient. Medical Law International, 2(4), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/096853329700200402
55.
OnyemelukweC. (2013). Neuroscience research involving older persons in Canada: Some legal and neuroethical concerns. Medicine and Law, 32(3), 389–422.
56.
PalmerB. W.SavlaG. N.RoeschS. C.JesteD. V. (2013). Changes in capacity to consent over time in patients involved in psychiatric research. British Journal of Psychiatry, 202(6), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.121160
57.
PesonenH.-M.RemesA. M.IsolaA. (2011). Ethical aspects of researching subjective experiences in early-stage dementia. Nursing Ethics, 18(5), 651–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011408046
58.
PesoneneH.-M.RemesA.IsolaA. (2010). Ethical issues of the research interviews with people with dementia and their significant others fourth European nursing congress. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(5), 129.
59.
RikkertM. G. M.van der VormA.BurnsA.DekkersW.RobertP.SartoriusN.SelmesJ.StoppeG.Vernooij-DassenM.WaldemarG. (2008). Consensus statement on genetic research in dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, 23(3), 262–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317508317817
60.
RubrightJ.CasarettD. J.GurR.XieS. X.KarlawishJ.SankarP. (2010). A memory and organizational aid improves Alzheimer disease research consent capacity: results of a randomized, controlled trial. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(12), 1124–1132.
61.
RuofM. C. (2004). Vulnerability, vulnerable populations, and policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2004.0044
62.
SchmandB.GouwenbergB.SmitJ. H.JonkerC. (1999). Assessment of mental competency in community-dwelling elderly. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 13(2), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002093-199904000-00004
63.
SeamanJ. B.TerhorstL.GentryA.HunsakerA.ParkerL. S.LinglerJ. H. (2015). Psychometric properties of a decisional capacity screening tool for individuals contemplating participation in Alzheimer’s disease research. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 46(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-142559
64.
SherrattC.SoteriouT.EvansS. (2007). Ethical issues in social research involving people with dementia. Dementia, 6(4), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301207084365
65.
SilvaO.CascioM. A.RacineE. (2020). Person-oriented research ethics and dementia: The lack of consensus. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 41(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.5195/aa.2020.211
66.
SlaughterS.ColeD.JenningsE.ReimerM. A. (2007). Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nursing Ethics, 14(7), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007071355
67.
SonneS. C.AndrewsJ. O.GentilinS. M.OppenheimerS.ObeidJ.BradyK.WolfS.DavisR.MagruderK. (2013). Development and pilot testing of a video-assisted informed consent process. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 36(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.05.011
68.
StanleyB.GuidoJ.StanleyM.ShortellD. (1984). The elderly patient and informed consent: Empirical findings. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252(10), 1302–1306.
SunderlandT.DukoffR. (1996). Informed consent with cognitively impaired patients: An NIMH perspective on the durable power of attorney. Accountability in Research, 4(3–4), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989629608573882
71.
SuttonL. B.ErlenJ. A.GladJ. M.SiminoffL. A. (2003). Recruiting vulnerable populations for research: Revisiting the ethical issues. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2003.16
72.
VassA. A.MinardiH. A.WardR.AggarwalN.GarfieldC.CybykB. (2003). Research into communication patterns and consequences for effective care of people with Alzheimer’s and their carers: Ethical considerations. Dementia, 2(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301203002001993
73.
WarkS.MacPhailC.McKayK.MüllerA. (2017). Informed consent in a vulnerable population group: Supporting individuals aging with intellectual disability to participate in developing their own health and support programs. Australian Health Review, 41(4), 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15235
74.
WildridgeV.BellL. (2002). How CLIP became ECLIPSE: A mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x
75.
YangY. T.KelsC. G. (2017). Ethical considerations in electronic monitoring of the cognitively impaired. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 30(2), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2017.02.160219
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
