The urgent need to expand enrollment in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) research has synergized calls for an empiric science of research recruitment, yet, progress in this area is hindered by challenges to measuring views toward ADRD research. This paper reports ethical and methodological considerations identified through a prospective qualitative study investigating ADRD patient and caregiver views on research recruitment and participation surrounding acute illness. Ethical and methodological considerations were identified through a combination of memoing, collaboration with a Community Advisory Board (CAB), and analysis of interview data from ADRD patients (N = 3) and/or caregivers (N = 28). These included risk for undue influence attributable to role ambiguity/motivational misconceptions, divergent decision-making preferences, bias contributing to low referrals of ADRD participants, and difficulty answering abstract/hypothetical questions. Many considerations were successfully addressed with multifaceted, proactive strategies, and CAB input. Findings have implications for recruitment science research and the validity of inferences regarding research preferences.
ApostolovaI.LangeC.RobertsA.IgelH. J.MaurerA.LieseS.BuchertR. (2017). Challenges in screening and recruitment for a neuroimaging study in cognitively impaired geriatric inpatients. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 56(1), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-160797
2.
AppelbaumP. S.RothL. H.LidzC. W.BensonP.WinsladeW. (1987). False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Center Report, 17(2), 20–24.
3.
AventC.CurryL.GregoryS.MarquardtS.PaeL.WilsonD.RitchieC. (2013). Establishing the motivations of patients with dementia and cognitive impairment and their carers in joining a dementia research register (DemReg). International Psychogeriatrics, 25(6), 963–971. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213000252
4.
BarnesM.BrannellyT. (2008). Achieving care and social justice for people with dementia. Nursing Ethics, 15(3), 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007088363
5.
BeattieA.Daker-WhiteG.GilliardJ.MeansR. (2004). ‘How can they tell?’ A qualitative study of the views of younger people about their dementia and dementia care services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 12(4), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2004.00505.x
6.
BirksM.ChapmanY.FrancisK. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254
7.
BlackB. S.WechslerM.FogartyL. (2013). Decision making for participation in dementia research. American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(4), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2012.11.009
CarreraJ. S.BrownP.BrodyJ. G.Morello-FroschR. (2018). Research altruism as motivation for participation in community-centered environmental health research. Social Science & Medicine, 196, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.028
10.
DarnellK. R.McGuireC.DannerD. D. (2011). African American participation in Alzheimer’s disease research that includes brain donation. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 26(6), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317511423020
DunnL. B.PalmerB. W. (2017). When does therapeutic misconception affect surrogates’ or subjects’ decision making about whether to participate in dementia research?AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(7), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.7.nlit1-1707
13.
FargoK. N.CarrilloM. C.WeinerM. W.PotterW. Z.KhachaturianZ. (2016). The crisis in recruitment for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s and dementia: An action plan for solutions. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 12(11), 1113–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2016.10.001
14.
FeldmanHallO.MobbsD.EvansD.HiscoxL.NavradyL.DalgleishT. (2012). What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition, 123(3), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001
15.
FitzsimonsG. J.ShivB. (2001). Nonconscious and contaminative effects of hypothetical questions on subsequent decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1086/322899
16.
FrankL.ShubeckE.SchickerM.WebbT.MaslowK.GitlinL.HummelC. H.KaplanE. K.LeBlancB.MarquezM.NicholsonB.O’BrienG.PhillipsL.Van BurenB.Epstein-LubowG. (2020a). Contributions of persons living with dementia to scientific research meetings. Results from the National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for persons with dementia and their caregivers. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 28(4), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2019.10.014
17.
FrankL.ShubeckE.SchickerM.WebbT.MaslowK.GitlinL.HummelC. H.KaplanE. K.LeBlancB.MarquezM.NicholsonB. P.O’BrienG.PhillipsL.Van BurenB.Epstein-LubowG. (2020b). The experiences of persons living with dementia planning for a dementia research meeting. Lessons learned from the National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for persons with dementia and their caregivers. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 28(4), 434–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2019.10.015
18.
Gilmore-BykovskyiA.L.JinY.GleasonC.Flowers-BentonS.BlockL. M.Dilworth-AndersonP.BarnesL. L.ShahM. N.ZuelsdorffM. (2019a). Recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations in Alzheimer’s disease research: a systematic review. Alzheimers Dement (N Y), 5, 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2019.09.018
19.
Gilmore-BykovskyiA. L.BlockL. M.MullenS. L.ThomasG. (2019b). Tailoring research recruitment approaches for the acute care setting: Recommendations from people with dementia and their caregivers. Alzheimers Dement (N Y), 15(7), P1175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.3569
20.
Gilmore-BykovskyiA. (2020, August 7). A participant and relationship-oriented approach to dementia research recruitment and engagement: The Brain Health Community Registry. Presentation to the 2020 NIA Dementia Care Summit.
21.
GitlinL. N.MaslowK.KhillanR. (2018). National research summit on care, services, and supports for persons with dementia and their caregivers: Report to the national advisory council on Alzheimer’s research, care and services. [PDF File]. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/259156/FinalReport.pdf
22.
GleasonC. E.NortonD.ZuelsdorffM.BentonS. F.WymanM. F.NystromN.AsthanaS. (2019). Association between enrollment factors and incident cognitive impairment in blacks and whites: Data from the Alzheimer’s disease center. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 15(12), 1533–1545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.07.015
HellströmI.NolanM.NordenfeltL.LundhU. (2007). Ethical and methodological issues in interviewing persons with dementia. Nursing Ethics, 14(5), 608–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007080206
25.
HillN. L.MogleJ.WhitakerE. B.Gilmore-BykovskyiA.BhargavaS.BhangI. Y.SweederL.TiwariP. A.Van HaitsmaK. (2019). Sources of response bias in cognitive self-report items: “Which memory are you talking about?”. Gerontologist, 59(5), 912–924. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny087
26.
HoldenT. R.KellerS.KimA.GehringM.SchmitzE.HermannC.Gilmore-BykvoskyiA.KindA. (2018). Procedural framework to facilitate hospital-based informed consent for dementia research. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 66(12), 2243–2248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15525
27.
HooperM.GrillJ. D.Rodriguez-AgudeloY.MedinaL. D.FoxM.Alvarez-RetuertoA. I.RingmanJ. M. (2013). The impact of the availability of prevention studies on the desire to undergo predictive testing in persons at risk for autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 36(1), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.07.006
28.
JohnssonL.HelgessonG.RafnarT.HalldorsdottirI.ChiaK. S.ErikssonS.HanssonM. G. (2010). Hypothetical and factual willingness to participate in biobank research. European Journal of Human Genetics, 18(11), 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2010.106
29.
KarlawishJ.KimS. Y.KnopmanD.van DyckC. H.JamesB. D.MarsonD. (2008). The views of Alzheimer disease patients and their study partners on proxy consent for clinical trial enrollment. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16(3), 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e318162992d
30.
KarlawishJ.RubrightJ.CasarettD.CaryM.Ten HaveT.SankarP. (2009). Older adults’ attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer’s research. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08050645
31.
KimS. Y.KarlawishJ. H.CaineE. D. (2002). Current state of research on decision-making competence of cognitively impaired elderly persons. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10(2), 151–165.
32.
LargentE. A.GradyC.MillerF. G.WertheimerA. (2012). Money, coercion, and undue inducement: Attitudes about payments to research participants. IRB, 34(1), 1–8.
33.
LidzC. W.AlbertK.AppelbaumP.DunnL. B.OvertonE.PivovarovaE. (2015). Why is therapeutic misconception so prevalent?Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1017/s096318011400053x
34.
McCormickJ. B. (2018). How should a research ethicist combat false beliefs and therapeutic misconception risk in biomedical research?AMA Journal of Ethics, 20(11), E1100–E1106. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2018.1100
35.
MorainS. R.JoffeS.LargentE. A. (2019). When is it ethical for physician-investigators to seek consent from their own patients?American Journal of Bioethics, 19(4), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1572811
NicksB. A.ShahM. N.AdlerD. H.BastaniA.BaughC. W.CaterinoJ. M.SunB. C. (2017). Minimizing attrition for multisite emergency care research. Academic Emergency Medicine, 24(4), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13135
39.
NovekS.WilkinsonH. (2019). Safe and inclusive research practices for qualitative research involving people with dementia: A review of key issues and strategies. Dementia, 18(3), 1042–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217701274
40.
ØksnebjergL.Diaz-PonceA.GoveD.Moniz-CookE.MountainG.ChattatR.WoodsB. (2018). Towards capturing meaningful outcomes for people with dementia in psychosocial intervention research: A pan-European consultation. Health Expectations, 21(6), 1056–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12799
PhelanE. A.BorsonS.GrothausL.BalchS.LarsonE. B. (2012). Association of incident dementia with hospitalizations. JAMA, 307(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1964
43.
RiesN. M.ThompsonK. A.LoweM. (2017). Including people with dementia in Research: An analysis of Australian ethical and legal rules and recommendations for reform. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 14(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9794-9
44.
RiesN.MansfieldE.Sanson-FisherR. (2019). Planning ahead for dementia research participation: Insights from a survey of older Australians and implications for ethics, law and practice. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 16(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09929-x
45.
ResnickB.Gruber-BaldiniA. L.Pretzer-AboffI.GalikE.BuieV. C.RussK.ZimmermanS. (2007). Reliability and validity of the evaluation to sign consent measure. Gerontologist, 47(1), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/47.1.69
46.
RichardsD. A.RossS.RobensS.BorglinG. (2014). The DiReCT study—Improving recruitment into clinical trials: A mixed methods study investigating the ethical acceptability, feasibility and recruitment yield of the cohort multiple randomised controlled trials design. Trials, 15, 398. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-398
47.
SlaughterS.ColeD.JenningsE.ReimerM. A. (2007). Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nurs Ethics, 14(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007071355
48.
StevensonM.TaylorB. J. (2019). Involving individuals with dementia as co-researchers in analysis of findings from a qualitative study. Dementia (London), 18(2), 701–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217690904
49.
SugarmanJ.CainC.WallaceR.Welsh-BohmerK. A. (2001). How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(8), 1110–1119. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49218.x
50.
SwarbrickC. M.DoorsO., Scottish Dementia Working Group, Educate, DavisK.KeadyJ. (2019). Visioning change: Co-producing a model of involvement and engagement in research (innovative practice). Dementia (London), 18(7–8), 3165–3172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216674559
51.
WatsonJ. L.RyanL.SilverbergN.CahanV.BernardM. A. (2014). Obstacles and opportunities in Alzheimer’s clinical trial recruitment. Health Affairs (Millwood), 33(4), 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1314
WhitfieldK.WismerS. (2006). Inclusivity and dementia: Health services planning with individuals with dementia: Effective inclusion requires action at multiple levels by individuals with dementia, care partners, service providers and funding organizations. Healthc Policy, 1(2), 120–134. PMCID: PMC2585329
54.
WilkinsonH. (2002). The perspectives of people with dementia: Research methods and motivations. Nursing Older People, 14(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.7748/nop.14.3.36.s22
ZhouY.ElashoffD.KremenS.TengE.KarlawishJ.GrillJ. D. (2017). African Americans are less likely to enroll in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimer’s & Dementia (N Y), 3(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2016.09.004
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.
