'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE)

BACKGROUND

Health and care research involving people who lack capacity to consent requires an alternative decision maker to decide whether they participate or not based on their 'presumed will'. However, this is often unknown. Advance research planning (ARP) is a process for people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to prospectively express their preferences about research participation and identify who they wish to be involved in future decisions. This may help to extend individuals' autonomy by ensuring that proxy decisions are based on their actual wishes. This qualitative study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of ARP and identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the UK.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 researchers, practitioners, and members of the public who had participated in a preceding survey. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and November 2023. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of the concept of ARP, with differing amounts of support for the range of possible ARP activities depending on the context. Six main themes were identified: (1) Planting a seed - creating opportunities to initiate/engage with ARP; (2) A missing part of the puzzle - how preferences expressed through ARP could help inform decisions; (3) Finding the sweet spot - optimising the timing of ARP; (4) More than a piece of paper - finding the best mode for recording preferences; (5) Keeping the door open to future opportunities - minimising the risk of unintended consequences; and (6) Navigating with a compass - principles underpinning ARP to ensure safeguarding and help address inequalities. Participants also identified a number of implementation challenges, and proposed facilitative strategies that might overcome them which included embedding advance research planning in existing future planning processes and research-focused activities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a routemap to implementing ARP in the UK to enable people anticipating impaired capacity to express their preferences about research, thus ensuring greater opportunities for inclusion of this under-served group, and addressing the decisional burden experienced by some family members acting as proxies. Development of interventions and guidance to support ARP is needed, with a focus on ensuring accessibility.

Practical and Ethical Aspects of Advance Research Directives for Research on Healthy Aging: German and Israeli Professionals' Perspectives

Background

Healthy aging is the development and maintenance of optimal cognitive, social and physical well-being, and function in older adults. Preventing or minimizing disease is one of the main ways of achieving healthy aging. Dementia is one of the most prevalent and life-changing diseases of old age. Thus, dementia prevention research is defined as one of the main priorities worldwide. However, conducting research with persons who lack the capacity to give consent is a major ethical issue.

Objective

Our study attempts to explore if and how advance research directives (ARDs) may be used as a future tool to deal with the ethical and practical issues in dementia research.

Method

We conducted focus groups and in-depth interviews with German and Israeli professional stakeholders from the fields of gerontology, ethics, medical law, psychiatry, neurology and policy advice (n = 16), and analyzed the main topics discussed regarding cross-national similarities and controversies within the groups, as well as across the two national contexts.

Results

While both countries are in the midst of a developmental process and have recognized the importance and need for ARD as a tool for expanding healthy aging, Germany is in a more advanced stage than Israel because of the EU regulation process, which indicates the influence of international harmonization on these research-related ethical issues. Consensual themes within the qualitative material were identified: the need for a broader debate on ARD, the ethical importance of autonomy and risk–benefit assessment for ARD implementation, the role of the proxy and the need for the differentiation of types of dementia research. Controversies and dilemmas aroused around themes such as the current role of IRBs in each country, the need for limits, and how to guaranty safeguarding and control.

Discussion

Implementing a new tool is a step-by-step procedure requiring a thorough understanding of the current state of knowledge as well as of the challenges and hurdles ahead. As long as improving quality of life and promoting autonomy continue to be core elements in the process of healthy aging, efforts to advance knowledge and solve dilemmas associated with the implementation of ARD is of the utmost importance.