Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

Participants' Comprehension of the Informed Consent in an Epidemiological Study on Dementia Prevalence: A Qualitative Study

Aim: In the absence of an effective treatment, informed participation in dementia research can hardly be underestimated. However, although informed consent is key in biomedical research, it may become a barrier to participation. Whether informed consent may cause confusion and contribute to unfair participant selection in dementia research is not known. In preparation of a future epidemiological study on the prevalence and impact of dementia in Switzerland, we aimed to conduct a qualitative study to explore participants' comprehension of the purpose of informed consent form and process shortly after participation in the pilot and validation study that preceded the large scale survey. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study with 22 participants of the validation phase of an epidemiological study on the prevalence and impact of dementia in Switzerland to capture their understanding of both the nature and the content of the informed consent form and process. Participants were older adults (65 years or more) eligible for a dementia epidemiological study and their informant (a person who could provide information on their health and cognition). None of the participants reported to be suffering from dementia at the time of the interview. Results: We found that participants held inaccurate and potentially trust-threatening beliefs regarding the scope of the informed consent. Participants identified contradictory contextual, formal and content needs that are difficult to be fulfilled, and misperceived the clinical and research settings in terms of informed consent procedures. Conclusions: Participants and their proxies should be informed about both the scope of the informed consent process, and the content of the informed consent document in a focused, age-appropriate manner, while dispelling confusion about the purpose of research.

Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To explore prospective participants' preferences regarding the return of their individual-specific results from a dementia prevalence study (a probabilistic diagnosis of dementia).

METHODS/DESIGN

We conducted a qualitative study with 22 individuals aged 45 to 86 and resident in the Canton of Ticino (Switzerland). Participants had previously joined the validation phase of an epidemiological study into dementia and its impact.

RESULTS

We found that individuals welcome the return of their individual-specific results, provided these meet a number of validity, clinical, and personal utility criteria. They justify researchers' duty to return study findings with the principles of beneficence (eg, providing information that can help participants' medical decision-making) and justice (eg, acknowledging participants' efforts to help research by sharing their personal information). Furthermore, individuals anticipate societal benefits of the return of individual specific study findings, including improved interpersonal relationships among individuals and decreased dementia-related stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that researchers should address the return of individual-specific study results early on during study design and involve prospective participants in identifying both the conditions under which results should be offered and the perceived individual and societal benefits returning can have.