» Articles » PMID: 21300949

Preservation of the Capacity to Appoint a Proxy Decision Maker: Implications for Dementia Research

Overview
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2011 Feb 9
PMID 21300949
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Context: Research involving persons with impaired decision-making capacity (such as persons with Alzheimer disease [AD]) remains ethically challenging, especially when the research involves significant risk. If individuals incapable of consenting to research studies were able to appoint a research proxy, it would allow for an appointed surrogate (rather than a de facto surrogate) to represent the subject.

Objective: To assess the extent to which persons with AD retain their capacity to appoint a research proxy.

Design: Interview study.

Setting: Academic research.

Participants: One hundred eighty-eight persons with AD were interviewed for their capacity to appoint a proxy for research and to provide consent to 2 hypothetical research scenarios, a lower-risk randomized clinical trial testing a new drug (drug RCT) and a higher-risk randomized clinical trial testing neurosurgical cell implants using a sham control condition (neurosurgical RCT). Categorical capacity status for each subject was determined by independent videotaped reviews of capacity interviews by 5 experienced psychiatrists.

Main Outcome Measures: Categorical capacity determinations for the capacity to appoint a research proxy, capacity to consent to a drug RCT, and capacity to consent to a neurosurgical RCT.

Results: Data showed that 37.7% (40 of 106) of those deemed incapable of consenting to the drug RCT and 54.8% (86 of 157) of those deemed incapable of consenting to the neurosurgical RCT were found capable of appointing a research proxy. Only 7 of 186 (3.8%) were deemed capable of consenting to the neurosurgical RCT by all 5 psychiatrists.

Conclusions: A substantial proportion of persons with AD who were thought incapable of consenting to lower-risk or higher-risk studies have preserved capacity for appointing a research proxy. Because few persons are found to be unequivocally capable of providing independent consent to higher-risk AD research, providing for an appointed surrogate even after the onset of AD, which might best be done in the early stages of the illness, may help address key ethical challenges to AD research.

Citing Articles

10 Principles of Geriatric Psychiatry.

Richler L, Shimizu M, Kester R Acad Psychiatry. 2025; .

PMID: 40032787 DOI: 10.1007/s40596-025-02126-6.


Facing the new diagnostic and treatment options of Alzheimer's disease: The necessity of informed consent.

Karneboge J, Haberstroh J, Geschke K, Perry J, Radenbach K, Jessen F Alzheimers Dement. 2024; 21(1):e14204.

PMID: 39740107 PMC: 11772727. DOI: 10.1002/alz.14204.


Views of stakeholders at risk for dementia about deep brain stimulation for cognition.

Klein E, Montes Daza N, Dasgupta I, MacDuffie K, Schonau A, Flynn G Brain Stimul. 2023; 16(3):742-747.

PMID: 37076043 PMC: 10576447. DOI: 10.1016/j.brs.2023.04.007.


Barriers to Using Legally Authorized Representatives in Clinical Research with Older Adults.

Mozersky J, Solomon E, Baldwin K, Wroblewski M, Parsons M, Goodman M J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2023; 7(1):135-149.

PMID: 36891257 PMC: 9986706. DOI: 10.3233/ADR-220103.


A randomized implementation trial to increase adoption of evidence-informed consent practices.

Solomon E, Mozersky J, Goodman M, Parsons M, Baldwin K, Friedrich A J Clin Transl Sci. 2023; 7(1):e28.

PMID: 36721403 PMC: 9884547. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2022.520.


References
1.
Marson D, Earnst K, Jamil F, Bartolucci A, Harrell L . Consistency of physicians' legal standard and personal judgments of competency in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(8):911-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb06887.x. View

2.
Wendler D, Martinez R, Fairclough D, Sunderland T, Emanuel E . Views of potential subjects toward proposed regulations for clinical research with adults unable to consent. Am J Psychiatry. 2002; 159(4):585-91. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.4.585. View

3.
Kim S . When does decisional impairment become decisional incompetence? Ethical and methodological issues in capacity research in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2005; 32(1):92-7. PMC: 2632180. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbi062. View

4.
Schneider L, Olin J, Lyness S, Chui H . Eligibility of Alzheimer's disease clinic patients for clinical trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997; 45(8):923-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1997.tb02960.x. View

5.
Kim S, Caine E, Currier G, LEIBOVICI A, Ryan J . Assessing the competence of persons with Alzheimer's disease in providing informed consent for participation in research. Am J Psychiatry. 2001; 158(5):712-7. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.5.712. View