Informed consent for schizophrenia research: what is an investigator (or IRB) to do?

Customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia in India

BACKGROUND

There is little information on how the ethical and procedural challenges involved in the informed participation of people with schizophrenia in clinical trials are addressed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The informed consent procedure used in the collaborative community care for people with schizophrenia in India (COPSI) RCT was developed keeping these challenges in mind. We describe the feasibility of conducting the procedure from the trial, researcher and participants perspectives and describe the reasons for people consenting to participate in the trial or refusing to do so.

METHODS

Three sources of information were used to describe the feasibility of the COPSI consent procedure: key process indicators for the trial perspective, data from a specially designed post-interview form for participant's observations and focus group discussion (FGD) with the research interviewers. Categorical data were analysed by calculating frequencies and proportions, while the qualitative data from the FGD, and the reasons for participation or refusal were analysed using a thematic content analysis approach.

FINDINGS

434 people with schizophrenia and their primary caregiver(s) were approached for participation in the trial. Consent interviews were conducted with 332, of whom 303 (91%) agreed to participate in the trial. Expectation of improvement was the most common reason for agreeing to participate in the trial, while concerns related to the potential disclosure of the illness, especially for women, were an important reason for refusing consent.

CONCLUSIONS

The COPSI consent procedure demonstrates preliminary, observational information about the feasibility of customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia LMIC contexts. This and other similar innovations need to be refined and rigorously tested to develop evidence-based guidelines for informed consent procedures in such settings.

The Relationship Between Executive Functions and Capacity to Consent to Treatment in Acute Psychiatric Hospitalization

Despite the acknowledged influence of cognition on patients' capacity to consent to treatment, the specific neuropsychological domains involved remain elusive, as does the role of executive functions. We investigated possible associations between executive functions and decisional capacity in a sample of acute psychiatric inpatients. Patients were recruited and evaluated through the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST). Patients with poor executive functioning performed worse in MacCAT understanding, appreciation, and expression of a choice, compared with good performers. These findings point to the importance of cognition in decisional capacity processes. In addition, the strong association found between learning abilities and informed consent decision-making provide empirical evidence indicating possible cognitive enhancement strategies that may improve psychiatric patients' competency.

Ethics in Psychiatric Research: A Review of 25 Years of NIH-funded Empirical Research Projects

BACKGROUND: This paper reviews the past 25 years of empirical research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on matters of ethics in psychiatric research. METHODS: Using the NIH RePORTER and Medline databases, we identified 43 grants and 77 publications that involved the empirical study of a matter of ethics in research involving mental health service users. RESULTS: These articles provide original and useful information on important topics, most especially the capacity to consent and the voluntariness of consent. For example, participants who share a diagnosis vary widely in levels of cognitive impairment that correlate with decisional capacity, and capacity to consent can be enhanced easily using iterative consent processes. Few articles address matters of justice or benefits in research, particularly from the perspectives of participants. No articles address matters of privacy, confidentiality, or researcher professionalism. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the usefulness of data from the studies conducted to date, current research on research ethics in psychiatry does not adequately address the concerns of service users as expressed in recent publications.

The investigator and the IRB: a survey of depression and schizophrenia researchers

Despite the integral part Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play in U.S. research, research on IRBs is lacking. This is especially true in the area of mental health investigator-IRB interactions. It was hypothesized that schizophrenia researchers would have a different experience with IRBs as compared to depression researchers. This would include longer turn-around time and fewer protocols approved on first submission. It was also thought that schizophrenia researchers would be more hesitant to submit ethically complex protocols for IRB review. 396 NIH-funded schizophrenia and depression investigators were invited to participate in a survey study on IRBs. 108 usable responses were returned, 45 of which were from schizophrenia researchers. Schizophrenia researchers were significantly less likely to submit ethically complex protocols for IRB review than depression researchers even when controlling for academic rank, years of research experience, type of research done, and the need to submit to multiple IRBs. However, there was no significant difference between researcher groups in IRB review turn-around time or initial approval rates. As a group, respondents found IRB submission paperwork burdensome but necessary and were almost evenly split as to whether IRB comments were helpful (54.8%) or not (45.2%). Time to initial review was 3 weeks or longer for most respondents. 94.4% agreed IRBs should enforce subject privacy and 68.2% agreed they should monitor conflict of interest, but only 37.% agreed IRBs should review study design. Conclusions are that 1. the population studied may have profound impacts on the type of protocols submitted to IRBs even within the field of mental health, 2. IRBs may not draw as large a distinction between depression and schizophrenia protocols as researchers believe, and 3. facilitating IRB review by eliminating evaluation of design may be possible if the protocol has already been vetted by a credible funding agency (such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health).

Multimedia consent for research in people with schizophrenia and normal subjects: a randomized controlled trial

Limitations of printed, text-based, consent forms have long been documented and may be particularly problematic for persons at risk for impaired decision-making capacity, such as those with schizophrenia. We conducted a randomized controlled comparison of the effectiveness of a multimedia vs routine consent procedure (augmented with a 10-minute control video presentation) as a means of enhancing comprehension among 128 middle-aged and older persons with schizophrenia and 60 healthy comparison subjects. The primary outcome measure was manifest decisional capacity (understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expression of choice) for participation in a (hypothetical) clinical drug trial, as measured with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) and the University of California San Diego (UCSD) Brief Assessment for Capacity to Consent (UBACC). The MacCAT-CR and UBACC were administered by research assistants kept blind to consent condition. Additional assessments included standardized measures of psychopathology and cognitive functioning. Relative to patients in the routine consent condition, schizophrenia patients receiving multimedia consent had significantly better scores on the UBACC and on the MacCAT-CR understanding and expression of choice subscales and were significantly more likely to be categorized as being capable to consent than those in the routine consent condition (as categorized with several previously established criteria). Among the healthy subjects, there were few significant effects of consent condition. These findings suggest that multimedia consent procedures may be a valuable consent aid that should be considered for use when enrolling participants at risk for impaired decisional capacity, particularly for complex and/or high-risk research protocols.

The association of specific neuropsychological deficits with capacity to consent to research or treatment

Informed consent is key to ethical clinical research and treatment, but partially rests on the ability of individual patients or research participants to use disclosed information to make a meaningful choice. Although the construct of decisional capacity emerged from legal and philosophical traditions, several investigators have begun examining the relationship of specific neuropsychological abilities to decisional capacity. This line of research may foster development of better consent procedures, as well as aid in refining the construct of decisional capacity toward a form that better reflects the underlying neurocognitive processes. We conducted a systematic search of the published literature and thereby identified and reviewed 16 published reports of empirical studies that examined the relationship between specific neuropsychological abilities and capacity to consent to research or treatment. Significant relationships between neuropsychological scores and decisional capacity were present across all the reviewed studies. The degree to which specific neuropsychological abilities have particular relevance to decisional capacity remains uncertain, but the existing studies provide a solid basis for a priori hypotheses for future investigations. These ongoing efforts represent an important conceptual and empirical bridge between bioethical, legal, and neuropsychological approaches to understanding meaningful decision-making processes.