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

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

BACKGROUND

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.

Dental informed consent challenges and considerations for cognitively impaired patients

Because the US population is living to an older age, the number of individuals with cognitive impairment and periodontitis is increasing, as both conditions/diseases increase with age. Dental informed consent best practices for dental/periodontal treatment of individuals with cognitive impairment have not been explored, yet warrant consideration, because complex dental treatments to address periodontal needs/edentulism raise challenges for informed consent in the elderly with cognitive impairment. The purpose of this review is to help practitioners better understand this topic and develop best practices in dentistry for informed consent of patients with cognitive impairment that need extensive dental treatment, including surgical and implant therapy.

Whose story is it? Mental health consumer and carer views on carer participation in research

BACKGROUND

Mental health carers contribute a unique set of perspectives and lived experiences to research; however, national research ethics guidelines do not specifically address the issues that affect informal carers as participants.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to explore Australian mental health consumer and carer views on the ethical conduct of research involving mental health carers.

DESIGN

A public forum (n = 14; consumer = 5, carer = 9) and a subsequent series of interviews (n = 10; consumer = 5, carer = 4, both = 1) were conducted to investigate consumer and carer views on mental health research ethics. Data collection and analysis drew strongly on methodological features of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Conducting research involving carers and consumer-carer relationships raises potential concerns related to story ownership. Lived experience stories have shared and separate elements; thus, it is important to consider potential risks to the privacy of non-participants and of social harm to participants' relationships when conducting research in this space. These risks could be minimized and managed through communication between researchers and participants, and within relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

When conducting research involving carers and consumer-carer relationships, researchers may need to facilitate the negotiation of information-sharing boundaries within relationships and the safe and confidential telling of shared stories.

The "Ought-Is" Problem: An Implementation Science Framework for Translating Ethical Norms Into Practice

We argue that once a normative claim is developed, there is an imperative to effect changes based on this norm. As such, ethicists should adopt an "implementation mindset" when formulating norms, and collaborate with others who have the expertise needed to implement policies and practices. To guide this translation of norms into practice, we propose a framework that incorporates implementation science into ethics. Implementation science is a discipline dedicated to supporting the sustained enactment of interventions. We further argue that implementation principles should be integrated into the development of specific normative claims as well as the enactment of these norms. Ethicists formulating a specific norm should consider whether that norm can feasibly be enacted because the resultant specific norm will directly affect the types of interventions subsequently developed. To inform this argument, we will describe the fundamental principles of implementation science, using informed consent to research participation as an illustration.

Do human subject safeguards matter to potential participants in psychiatric genetic research?

Despite longstanding concerns about the adequacy of human research protections in mental illness investigations, minimal work has focused on the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding these safeguards. This investigation examined the perspectives of potential research participants regarding safeguards for psychiatric genetic research. Individuals with mental illness (n = 71), first-degree family members of individuals with mental illness (n = 54), and individuals with no personal or close family history of mental illness (n = 57) provided responses to items regarding perceptions of: 1) protectiveness of a range of research safeguards in genetic research on mental illness; 2) influence of these safeguards on research participation decision-making; and 3) importance of these safeguards depending on the nature of the research (i.e., genetic vs. non-genetic mental illness research; and genetic research on mental illness vs. physical illness). Potential research participants perceived existing safeguard procedures as generally protective. The three groups did not differ in their ratings of protectiveness, with the exception of the safeguard domain of "Informed Consent or Alternative Decision-Making Procedures," which was viewed as more protective by family members of people with mental illness than by individuals with mental illness or comparison participants. Safeguard procedures were perceived as strongly influential with respect to willingness to enroll in psychiatric genetic research. These findings suggest that the presence of safeguards positively influences enrollment decision-making by research volunteers and indicate that potential psychiatric genetic research participants find safeguards to be protective, underscoring the responsibility to implement safeguard practices conscientiously.

Australian Mental Health Consumer and Carer Perspectives on Ethics in Adult Mental Health Research

Barriers to research arise when national ethical guidelines governing the inclusion of consumers in mental health research are implemented at the local level. Equivalent guidelines for research involving carers are not available. A social science investigation of Australian mental health consumer and carer perspectives on research ethics procedures was conducted in two interlinked stages: (a) a discussion forum with consumers, carers, and lived-experience researchers and (b) in-depth interviews with consumers and carers. Data collection and analysis drew strongly on methodological features of grounded theory. Privacy, confidentiality, and stigmatizing ethics procedures were key issues for consumer and carer participants. Recommendations for research practice include the following: considering the impact of information sharing on participants' relationships and adopting individual-focused approaches to managing research risks.

Using iterative learning to improve understanding during the informed consent process in a South African psychiatric genomics study

Obtaining informed consent is a great challenge in global health research. There is a need for tools that can screen for and improve potential research participants' understanding of the research study at the time of recruitment. Limited empirical research has been conducted in low and middle income countries, evaluating informed consent processes in genomics research. We sought to investigate the quality of informed consent obtained in a South African psychiatric genomics study. A Xhosa language version of the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent Questionnaire (UBACC) was used to screen for capacity to consent and improve understanding through iterative learning in a sample of 528 Xhosa people with schizophrenia and 528 controls. We address two questions: firstly, whether research participants' understanding of the research study improved through iterative learning; and secondly, what were predictors for better understanding of the research study at the initial screening? During screening 290 (55%) cases and 172 (33%) controls scored below the 14.5 cut-off for acceptable understanding of the research study elements, however after iterative learning only 38 (7%) cases and 13 (2.5%) controls continued to score below this cut-off. Significant variables associated with increased understanding of the consent included the psychiatric nurse recruiter conducting the consent screening, higher participant level of education, and being a control. The UBACC proved an effective tool to improve understanding of research study elements during consent, for both cases and controls. The tool holds utility for complex studies such as those involving genomics, where iterative learning can be used to make significant improvements in understanding of research study elements. The UBACC may be particularly important in groups with severe mental illness and lower education levels. Study recruiters play a significant role in managing the quality of the informed consent process.

Informed Consent to Research with Cognitively Impaired Adults: Transdisciplinary Challenges and Opportunities

Due to issues related to informed research consent, older adults with cognitive impairments are often excluded from high-quality studies that are not directly related to cognitive impairment, which has led to a dearth of evidence for this population. The challenges to including cognitively impaired older adults in research and the implications of their exclusion are a transdisciplinary issue. The ethical challenges and logistical barriers to conducting research with cognitively impaired older adults are addressed from the perspectives of three different fields-social work, emergency medicine, and orthopaedic surgery. Issues related to funding, study design, intervention components, and outcomes are discussed through the unique experiences of three different providers. A fourth perspective-medical research ethics-provides alternatives to exclusion when conducting research with cognitively impaired older adults such as timing, corrective feedback and plain language, and capacity assessment and proxy appointments. Given the increasing aging population and the lack of evidence on cognitively impaired older adults, it is critical that researchers, funders, and institutional review boards not be dissuaded from including this population in research studies.

Addressing risks to advance mental health research

IMPORTANCE

Risk communication and management are essential to the ethical conduct of research, yet addressing risks may be time consuming for investigators and institutional review boards may reject study designs that seem too risky. This can discourage needed research, particularly in higher-risk protocols or those enrolling potentially vulnerable individuals, such as those with some level of suicidality. Improved mechanisms for addressing research risks may facilitate much needed psychiatric research.

OBJECTIVE

To provide mental health researchers with practical approaches to (1) identify and define various intrinsic research risks, (2) communicate these risks to others (eg, potential participants, regulatory bodies, and society), (3) manage these risks during the course of a study, and (4) justify the risks.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

As part of a National Institute of Mental Health-funded scientific meeting series, a public conference and a closed-session expert panel meeting were held on managing and disclosing risks in mental health clinical trials. The expert panel reviewed the literature with a focus on empirical studies and developed recommendations for best practices and further research on managing and disclosing risks in mental health clinical trials. No institutional review board-review was required because there were no human subjects.

FINDINGS

Challenges, current data, practical strategies, and topics for future research are addressed for each of 4 key areas pertaining to management and disclosure of risks in clinical trials: identifying and defining risks, communicating risks, managing risks during studies, and justifying research risks.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Empirical data on risk communication, managing risks, and the benefits of research can support the ethical conduct of mental health research and may help investigators better conceptualize and confront risks and to gain institutional review board-approval.