Meta-consent in research on decisional capacity: a "Catch-22"?

Multimedia Aided Consent for Alzheimer's Disease Research

OBJECTIVES

Optimizing the research consent process simultaneously fosters respect for autonomy and protection of those with diminished capacity for autonomy. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an enhanced research consent procedure, employing multimedia disclosure and corrective feedback, in improving decisional capacity among 114 people with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 134 non-psychiatric comparison (NC) subjects.

METHODS

Participants were randomized to consent type (routine versus enhanced) and protocol type (lower versus higher risk). Outcomes included a 5-item questionnaire assessing immediate comprehension, MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research assessing four components of decision-making capacity, and categorical decisional capacity (based on a cut-score established in reference to expert judgments for a subset of participants).

RESULTS

There was no significant effect of the enhanced consent procedure, relative to routine consent, on immediate comprehension or decisional capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimedia tools do not appear to be the solution to better consent for AD research.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Given the ethical primacy of informed consent and issues of justice for impaired populations who might be harmed by an absence of research-based treatment advances, continued search for ways to more meaningfully engage people with AD in the consent or assent process is warranted.

Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Research Among Psychiatric Outpatients: Prevalence and Associated Factors

Mental capacity is an emerging ethical legal concept in psychiatric settings but its relation to clinical parameters remains yet uncertain. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between capacity to consent research and different psychiatric disorders and to characterize predictors of impairments in research decision-making capacity across diagnostic groups in a cross-sectional study. 139 consecutively referred outpatients with DSM-IV TR diagnoses of psychotic, mood and anxiety disorders were interviewed and a binary judgment of incapacity was made guided by the MacArthur competence assessment tool for consent research (MacCAT-CR). Demographics and clinical information were assessed by cases notes. Patients with anxiety disorders performed the best on the MacCAT-CR, and patients with psychotic disorders had the worst performance, however, there was considerable heterogeneity within each group. Cognitive impairment and global functioning were strongly correlated with MacCAT-CR subscales scores. 30.6% participants lacked research-related decisional capacity. Low Understanding score OR 0.07 (IC 95% 0.01-0.32) and Low Reasoning score OR 0.30 (IC 95% 0.11-0.82) were the factors most closely associated with lack of capacity. No absolute statements about decisional capacity can be driven merely due to the diagnosis. We found several risk factors which may be considered to decide which populations may require more thorough capacity assessments. The issues under consideration in the present study are by no means unique to people with psychiatric conditions. Ignoring this caveat, risks further inappropriate stigmatization of those with serious mental illness.

Decisional capacity and consent for schizophrenia research

Background

Despite substantial research on overall decision-making capacity (DMC) levels in schizophrenia, factors causing individuals to make errors during decision-making regarding research participation or treatment are relatively unknown.

Methods

We examined the responses of 84 middle-aged and older patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder on a structured DMC measure—the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research—to determine the frequency and apparent cause of patients’ errors.

Results

Most errors were due to difficulty recalling the disclosed information (seen in 65.5% of patients), particularly the study’s procedures, potential risks/discomforts, and purpose. Errors attributable to concrete thinking, thought disorder or other psychotic symptoms, or perceived coercion were rarer.

Conclusions

Informed consent procedures might be improved for this population by providing information in a way that facilitates learning and memory, such as iterative disclosure of the information, corrective feedback, and emphasis of key points (e.g., the study’s purpose, procedures, and potential risks).

Ethical Issues in Deep Brain Stimulation Research for Treatment-Resistant Depression: Focus on Risk and Consent

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently in pivotal trials as an intervention for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although offering hope for TRD, DBS also provokes ethical concerns-particularly about decision-making capacity of people with depression-among bioethicists, investigators, institutional review boards, and the public. Here, we examine this critical issue of informed consent for DBS research using available evidence regarding decision-making capacity and depression. Further, we explore the implications of the nature of TRD as well as that of the intervention (invasive brain surgery) for informed consent. Based on these analyses, we argue that additional safeguards specific to DBS research for TRD, beyond those that might be used in any higher risk study, are not supported by available empirical evidence. We nevertheless underscore the limited data on such invasive procedures in severely ill psychiatric patients and advocate a research agenda for the systematic study of ethical issues raised by these research endeavors.

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.

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.

Prevalence and correlates of adequate performance on a measure of abilities related to decisional capacity: differences among three standards for the MacCAT-CR in patients with schizophrenia

Despite the availability of structured decision-making capacity assessment tools, insufficient guidance exists for applying their results. Investigators often use cutpoints on these instruments to identify potential subjects in need of further assessment or education. Yet, information is lacking regarding the effects of different cutpoints on the proportion and characteristics of individuals categorized as possessing adequate or impaired decisional abilities for consent to research. To demonstrate the potential impact of different standards, we informed 91 individuals, aged 50 or older with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, about a hypothetical clinical trial, and assessed their decisional abilities with the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR). Three published MacCAT-CR-based standards were applied to participants' scores to examine the rates and correlates of categorical determinations of adequate performance. The three standards ranged in stringency: the most stringent incorporated cutpoints on all three of the major MacCAT-CR subscales (Understanding, Appreciation, and Reasoning); the other two standards required threshold performance only on the Understanding subscale. The most stringent standard resulted in a 57% rate of impaired performance; the intermediate standard, 19%; and the least stringent standard, 8%. Nearly half of the participants (n=45) were classified as having performed adequately by the least stringent standard yet inadequately by the most stringent. The majority of these 45 were impaired on the Appreciation subscale (n=9), Reasoning (n=15), or both (n=18). Cognitive functioning was correlated with performance status for the more stringent standards. These findings underscore the need for refinement of capacity assessment procedures and for improvements in the use of capacity assessment tools for screening purposes and to assist in categorical capacity determinations.

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.