Ethical considerations in psychopharmacological research involving decisionally impaired subjects

Conflicts of interest and industry professional relationships in psychiatric neurosurgery: a comparative literature review

OBJECTIVE The research required to establish that psychiatric treatments are effective often depends on collaboration between academic clinical researchers and industry. Some of the goals of clinical practice and those of commercial developers of psychiatric therapies overlap, such as developing safe and effective treatments. However, there might also be incompatible goals; physicians aim to provide the best care they can to their patients, whereas the medical industry ultimately aims to develop therapies that are commercially successful. In some cases, however, clinical research may be aiming both at improved patient care and commercial success. It is in these cases that a conflict of interest (COI) arises. The goal of this study was to identify differences and commonalities regarding COIs between 2 kinds of somatic psychiatric interventions: pharmacological and neurosurgical. METHODS The authors conducted a study focused on professional concerns regarding pharmacological and neurosurgical psychiatric interventions. They used medical and bioethics journal articles as an indicator of professionals' concerns and carried out a thematic content analysis of peer-reviewed articles published between 1960 and 2015, using PubMed and Google Scholar. RESULTS One hundred thirty-seven relevant articles were identified, of which 86 papers focused primarily on psychopharmacology and 51 on neurosurgery. The intervention most discussed in the psychiatric neurosurgery data set was deep brain stimulation (n = 42). While there were no significant differences at the level of categories, pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions differ in the underlying themes discussed. Two issues widely discussed in the articles on pharmaceutical interventions, but largely neglected in the neurosurgery articles, were medical professional issues and industry involvement. CONCLUSIONS COIs are a neglected issue in the discussion of ethics concerns regarding medical devices in psychiatry. Yet as these interventions become more common, it is important to address them in part through learning from the discussion regarding COIs in the pharmaceutical industry and by developing approaches to address those aspects of COIs that are unique to the medical device industry.

Assessment of Motivations and Willingness to Participate in Research of Outpatients With Anxiety, Mood, and Psychotic Disorders

The motivations of participants recruited for research, especially from potentially vulnerable populations, have received increasing attention. The present investigation compares the motivations and willingness to participate in research of 134 psychiatric outpatients and 50 controls. The willingness to participate of both groups was similar. We found a higher proportion of psychiatric admissions and a higher degree of computer literacy among those willing to participate. Regardless of their decision concerning participation, the reasons given by the members of both groups were logical and concordant with the related literature. This suggests that negative views about the motivations of psychiatric patients to act as research participants are unfounded. Efforts should focus on the predictors of willingness to participate that we have identified for improving recruitment. The implications of these results for research are discussed.

Beyond Consent in Research

Neuroethics Now welcomes papers addressing the ethical application of neuroscience in research and patient care, as well as its impact on society.

Safety methodology in pediatric psychopharmacology trials

In recent years, there has been an increase in pediatric clinical trials as the result of an identified need for greater research with this population. Given the potential risks, and the vulnerability of the population, there has also been an identified need for greater safety elicitation and monitoring in pediatric psychopharmacology trials, for example, through the use of a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB). However, research indicates that pediatric trials and psychiatric trials are less likely to use a DSMB. The rationale for the current study was to determine what safety methodologies have been reported in pediatric psychopharmacology trials over the past 10 years. A literature review was conducted of all pediatric psychopharmacology trials published since 2001. Results indicated that the most common elicitation method was collecting laboratory information and vital signs. Six percent of trials solely relied on spontaneous reporting of adverse events, and only 11.8% reported using a DSMB. These results suggest that elicitation methods and use of DSMBs are still low. Practical considerations, affected stakeholders, and barriers are discussed. Recommendations for moving forward include the use of multiple elicitation methods and automatic requirement of a DSMB for pediatric psychopharmacology trials, required completion of a standardized safety reporting form, and engaging multiple interested parties in these processes.

Down syndrome: issues to consider in a national registry, research database and biobank

As the quality of life for individuals with Down syndrome continues to improve due to anticipatory healthcare, early intervention, mainstreaming in schools, and increased expectations, the lack of basic information regarding individuals with Down syndrome is being recognized, and the need to facilitate research through a national registry, research database and biobank is being discussed. We believe that there should not be ownership of the samples and information, but instead prefer stewardship of the samples and information to benefit the participants who provided them. We endorse a model with data and sample managers and a research review board to interface between the investigators and participants. Information and samples would be coded, and only a few data managers would know the relationship between the codes and identifying information. Research results once published should be included in an online newsletter. If appropriate, individual results should be shared with participants. A Down syndrome registry, research database and biobank should be accountable to participants, families, medical care providers, government, and funding sources.

Worth the risk? Relationship of incentives to risk and benefit perceptions and willingness to participate in schizophrenia research

OBJECTIVE

Providing incentives for research participation is widely practiced but minimally studied. In schizophrenia research, questions about capacity to consent and potential vulnerability may raise concerns when offering incentives for participation. Despite empirical attention focused on consent and decision-making capacity in schizophrenia, the issue of incentives has been essentially ignored. We examined willingness to participate in research, in relation to perceived risks and benefits, among people with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

METHOD

Forty-six people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder rated perceived risks and benefits of 5 hypothetical research vignettes. They also indicated whether they would be willing to participate at each of 5 incentive levels (including no compensation). Cognition was assessed with Mattis Dementia Rating Scale.

RESULTS

Ratings of risk and potential personal benefit were inversely correlated. For all scenarios, significant correlations were found between perceived risk and willingness to participate for greater compensation. Conversely, lower perceived likelihood of benefit was associated with a higher compensation threshold for participation in each scenario. Even at the highest proffered payment level for each scenario, however, a substantial proportion of respondents were not willing to participate. Risk assessment and willingness to participate (at all levels of compensation) were not associated with demographic variables or cognitive status.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining whether incentives impede voluntarism remains an important task for empirical ethics research. Assessing potential research participants' understanding and perceptions of risks, benefits, and alternatives to participation will help ensure that informed consent fulfills its mission--embodying the ethical principle of respect for persons.

Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge

OBJECTIVE

There is a lack of consensus on how to evaluate the risk of research studies conducted with persons who have psychiatric disorders. The authors reviewed research on vulnerability, risk, and procedures to mitigate risk in studies with this population to help inform evaluation of such research.

METHODS

Searches of MEDLINE (1966-2006), PsycINFO (1967-2006), and Google Scholar used combinations of the terms mental illness, vulnerable, psychiatric, schizophrenia, and depression combined with terms such as research risk, vulnerability, research harm, capacity, risk, and mitigation of risk. Articles were identified from reference lists, and additional searches used terms from identified articles.

RESULTS

Evidence for two types of vulnerability--capacity based and power based--is presented, which supports the notion of vulnerability as a state, rather than a trait, among persons with psychiatric disorders. Three categories of risk are described--minimal risk, minor increment over minimal risk, and greater than minor increment. Evidence shows that many common types of studies pose risk in the first two categories when conducted with this population. The literature also describes procedures for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk that should be considered in study evaluations. The authors offer a framework for evaluating the category of risk posed by a study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although more research is needed, there is sufficient evidence that many common types of research present minimal risk or only a minor increment over minimal risk for large segments of the population of persons with psychiatric disorders, as they do for persons in the general population.

Clinical research with cognitively impaired subjects: issues for nurses

Critical care nurses may be faced with assisting or conducting clinical research during their career. Also, critical care nurses frequently care for cognitively impaired patients who may become subjects in a clinical study. This article provides insight into the ethical principles in clinical research as they pertain to subjects who may have diminished ability to make their own decisions.

Capacity to consent to research in schizophrenia: the expanding evidence base

Capacity to consent to research, fundamental to informed consent and thus vital to the ethical conduct of research, may be impaired among a variety of research populations. Until recently, relatively little empirical evidence has been available to inform discussion and policy-making regarding whose capacity should be assessed, what should be measured, and how it should be measured. Capacity to consent to research has emerged as a central topic in the field of "empirical ethics," an important area of biomedical research devoted to bringing evidence-based methods to the study of ethically salient issues in biomedical and biopsychosocial research. In this paper, empirical studies of capacity to consent to research are reviewed, with a particular focus on studies involving people with schizophrenia. These studies provide intriguing data regarding the nature, correlates, and modifiability of decisional abilities among potentially vulnerable research populations, including individuals with serious neuropsychiatric illnesses. Areas in need of further empirical ethics research are highlighted.

Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research

Many challenging ethical questions come with the scientific efforts to understand the nature and treatment of schizophrenia. The empirical study of ethical aspects of schizophrenia research has sought to clarify and resolve many of these questions. In this article we provide an overview of the existing data-based literature on schizophrenia research ethics and outline directions for future inquiry. We examine 5 broad categories of inquiry into the ethics of schizophrenia research: (1) Scientific designs (eg, placebo-controlled studies and medication-free intervals, prodromal and high-risk research, and genetics research); (2) informed consent and decision-making capacity, including assessment of decisional abilities, as well as intervention studies; (3) understanding and perceptions of risk and benefit (including the therapeutic misconception); (4) influences on research participation (including voluntarism, altruism, and other motivations); and (5) key participant safeguards, such as protocol review and participant advocates. We discuss how empirical work in each of these areas answers certain questions and raises new ones. Finally, we highlight important gaps in our understanding of ethically relevant aspects of schizophrenia research and offer a specific research agenda for empirical ethics.

Emerging findings in ethics of schizophrenia research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review recent publications pertaining to six topics: investigators, professional integrity, and sources of potential bias; scientific designs; protocol safeguards; influences on research participation decisions and perceptions of risk; informed consent--decision-making capacity, appreciation and the therapeutic misconception, and voluntarism; and informed consent--intervention studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Little empirical work has been conducted on investigator training and potential conflicts of interest. Numerous conceptual pieces have tackled controversial issues related to study designs, with the initial focal point being the ethics of placebo-controlled studies; only a handful of reports, however, have empirically addressed these topics. Emerging findings pertinent to protocol safeguards in schizophrenia research suggest general support by individuals with schizophrenia for a variety of safeguards. Recent work on influences on participation decisions suggests that people with schizophrenia use fundamentally similar considerations as medically ill people and healthy comparison participants--a combination of personal and altruistic motives. Much of the data-based literature has focused on informed consent. We highlight studies indicating that patients living with schizophrenia show heterogeneity in consent-related abilities but may possess key strengths in the research situation, not simply greater vulnerability as suggested in the historical literature. Furthermore, consent-related abilities appear to be enhanced with educational interventions.

SUMMARY

Empirical studies focusing on a variety of ethically relevant domains in schizophrenia research are needed. Future studies should incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods, integrate perspectives of stakeholders, and investigate the effects and appropriateness of current protocol safeguards.