Beyond competence: advance directives in dementia research

Perspectives on advance research directives from individuals with mild cognitive impairment and family members: a qualitative interview study

Background

Advance research directives (ARDs) provide a promising way to involve individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in research decisions before they lose the capacity to consent. At the same time, the views of people with MCI on ARDs are underexplored. This study assesses the perceptions of people with MCI and family members on the benefits and challenges associated with ARDs.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of individuals with MCI and family members of individuals with MCI on ARDs. We focus specifically on willingness to participate in nontherapeutic research, understanding of ARDs and the ethical considerations involved.

Methods

Thirteen open-ended, face-to-face interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format. Seven interviews were conducted with individuals with MCI, and six with family members of individuals with MCI. The narratives were transcribed verbatim and qualitative content analysis was carried out.

Results

Research participation and ARDs were viewed positively, largely based on altruistic motives and the desire to contribute to society. The participants recognized the potential advantages of ARDs in reducing the decision-making burden on family members and maintaining personal autonomy. They also highlighted challenges in comprehending ARDs and navigating the complexities surrounding potential conflicts between current preferences versus preferences described in an ARD.

Conclusions

ARDs were predominantly seen as valuable instruments that enable individuals with MCI to participate in research. This study provides insights into the reasons why affected individuals are interested in drafting ARDs. These insights can guide the development of supportive interventions that are tailored to assist individuals with MCI and their families in navigating ARD processes.

A Personalized Patient Preference Predictor for Substituted Judgments in Healthcare: Technically Feasible and Ethically Desirable

When making substituted judgments for incapacitated patients, surrogates often struggle to guess what the patient would want if they had capacity. Surrogates may also agonize over having the (sole) responsibility of making such a determination. To address such concerns, a Patient Preference Predictor (PPP) has been proposed that would use an algorithm to infer the treatment preferences of individual patients from population-level data about the known preferences of people with similar demographic characteristics. However, critics have suggested that even if such a PPP were more accurate, on average, than human surrogates in identifying patient preferences, the proposed algorithm would nevertheless fail to respect the patient's (former) autonomy since it draws on the 'wrong' kind of data: namely, data that are not specific to the individual patient and which therefore may not reflect their actual values, or their reasons for having the preferences they do. Taking such criticisms on board, we here propose a new approach: the Personalized Patient Preference Predictor (P4). The P4 is based on recent advances in machine learning, which allow technologies including large language models to be more cheaply and efficiently 'fine-tuned' on person-specific data. The P4, unlike the PPP, would be able to infer an individual patient's preferences from material (e.g., prior treatment decisions) that is in fact specific to them. Thus, we argue, in addition to being potentially more accurate at the individual level than the previously proposed PPP, the predictions of a P4 would also more directly reflect each patient's own reasons and values. In this article, we review recent discoveries in artificial intelligence research that suggest a P4 is technically feasible, and argue that, if it is developed and appropriately deployed, it should assuage some of the main autonomy-based concerns of critics of the original PPP. We then consider various objections to our proposal and offer some tentative replies.

Advance Care Planning Among Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: Patient Perspectives on Goals of Care Conversations

INTRODUCTION

Little is known regarding circumstances surrounding advanced care planning (ACP) for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We aim to describe preferences, and perspectives surrounding ACP in patients with ALS.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of patients with ALS. Survey questions were related to advance directive completion and ACP discussions regarding end-of-life (EoL) choices.

RESULTS

49 surveys were included. Patients have given thought to advance directives, goals of care, and EoL treatments within months of diagnosis (Median: 1 month; IQR: .6 - 3 months). Twenty-seven opened dialogue with spouses, 24 with family members, 19 with health professionals and 16 with their lawyer. Eighty percent were comfortable discussing advance directives and power of attorney while fewer (70%) are less comfortable regarding specific aspects of care such as CPR or invasive ventilation. Only one barrier to discussion was identified with one patient reporting they did not wish to talk about the topic. There was no significant correlation between timing of diagnosis and whether an EoL discussion had occurred (τb = .23, P = .14: n = 42). Level of feeling informed was significantly associated with making EoL decisions for CPR, legal arrangements for a decision maker and completion of living will or AD.

CONCLUSION

In this small cohort, a substantial proportion of ALS patients initiated EoL conversations early. When feeling informed, patients were more likely to make specific EoL choices. Findings suggest an opportunity for providers to help facilitate conversations, ensuring patient wishes.

Ethics Along the Continuum of Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Interest in disorders of consciousness (DoC) has grown substantially over the past decade and has illuminated the importance of improving understanding of DoC biology; care needs (use of monitoring, performance of interventions, and provision of emotional support); treatment options to promote recovery; and outcome prediction. Exploration of these topics requires awareness of numerous ethics considerations related to rights and resources. The Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group used its expertise in neurocritical care, neuropalliative care, neuroethics, neuroscience, philosophy, and research to formulate an informal review of ethics considerations along the continuum of research involving persons with DoC related to the following: (1) study design; (2) comparison of risks versus benefits; (3) selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening, recruitment, and enrollment; (5) consent; (6) data protection; (7) disclosure of results to surrogates and/or legally authorized representatives; (8) translation of research into practice; (9) identification and management of conflicts of interest; (10) equity and resource availability; and (11) inclusion of minors with DoC in research. Awareness of these ethics considerations when planning and performing research involving persons with DoC will ensure that the participant rights are respected while maximizing the impact and meaningfulness of the research, interpretation of outcomes, and communication of results.

Challenges of anticipation of future decisions in dementia and dementia research

Anticipation of future decisions can be important for individuals at risk for diseases to maintain autonomy over time. For future treatment and care decisions, advance care planning is accepted as a useful anticipation tool. As research with persons with dementia seems imperative to develop disease-modifying interventions, and with changing regulations regarding research participation in Germany, advance research directives (ARDs) are considered a solution to include persons with dementia in research in an ethically sound manner. However, little is known about what affected people deem anticipatable.This contribution provides a critical reflection of the literature on anticipation and of a qualitative study on the assessment of ARDs with persons with cognitive impairment in Germany. It combines theoretical and empirical reflections to inform the ethical-legal discourse.Anticipation involves the conceptual separation of the past, the present, and the future. Including dimensions such as preparedness, injunction, and optimization helps in establishing a framework for anticipatory decision-making. While dementia may offer a window of time to consider future decisions, individual beliefs about dementia including fears about stigma, loss of personhood, and solitude strongly impact anticipating sentiments. Concepts of anticipation can be useful for the examination of uncertainty, changing values, needs, and preferences interconnected with the dementia trajectory and can serve as a means to make an uncertain future more concrete. However, fears of losing one's autonomy in the process of dementia also apply to possibilities of anticipation as these require cognitive assessment and reassessment of an imagined future with dementia.

Ethical aspects of facilitating the recruitment of people with dementia for clinical trials: A call for further debate

Under-representation of people with dementia in clinical research remains a significant obstacle to develop evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendation for dementia care and slows down the development of disease-modifying pharmacological interventions. This is partly due to the ethical challenges and complexities of recruiting people with dementia for clinical trials. The traditional approach adopted by research ethics committees and regulatory bodies has been to protect people with dementia as a vulnerable population from harms of participating in research. There are concerns that this approach is unduly rigid, precludes the conduct of necessary research, and has exclusionary, paternalistic and discriminatory ramifications. As such, there are increasing calls to shift to a new hybrid facilitative/protective approach. This paper identifies 4 strategies to operationalise the facilitative/protective approach in the context of dementia research. These are: (i) embedding dementia research in clinical care; (ii) increasing the recruitment of people at preclinical stages of dementia; (iii) streamlined proxy consent procedures; and (iv) advance research consent. I note that all 4 strategies hold the promise of facilitating the recruitment of people with dementia in clinical research. Nonetheless, they give rise to a diverse range of new ethical concerns and issues. This necessitates further scholarly work to explore possible ways to address the ethical concerns and issues arisen by the uptake of protective/facilitative approach. In particular, further research is necessary to clarify, to what extent, the said strategies ameliorate or increase the vulnerability of people with dementia.

Motivations for people with cognitive impairment to complete an advance research directive - a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Research with persons with dementia is important to better understand the causes of dementia and to develop more effective diagnostics, therapies, and preventive measures. Advance Research Directives (ARDs) have been suggested as a possible solution to include persons with dementia in research in an ethically sound way. Little is known about how people, especially those affected by cognitive impairment, understand and regard the use of ARDs, as empirical studies are mainly conducted with healthy, non-cognitively impaired, participants.

METHODS

This qualitative study, a sub-study of a larger study on the evaluation of ARDs in the context of dementia research in Germany, consists of semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 persons with cognitive impairment.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that most participants consider ARDs a valuable tool for allowing them to make their own decisions. Many would prefer to draft an ARD when they are still healthy or soon after the diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Participants suggested that the completion of ARDs can be advanced with the provision of practical support and increased dissemination of information on ARDs in society.

CONCLUSION

Persons with subjective or mild cognitive impairment (SCI/MCI) suggested several motivating factors and concerns for completing an ARD. Clinicians need to be trained to accommodate patients' needs for sufficient and adequate information. Furthermore, a standardised, partly pre-formulated template could be helpful for drafting an ARD. As such tested templates are currently not yet available, this addresses the urgent need for more translational and implementation research for the use of ARDs.

The process of obtaining informed consent to research in long term care facilities (LTCFs): An Observational Clinical Study

We examined the process of obtaining informed consent (IC) for clinical research purposes in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in Rhode Island (RI), USA. We assessed factors that were associated with resident ability to consent, such as Brief Interview for Mental Status scores. We used a self-administered questionnaire to further understand the effect of LTCF staff evaluation of ability to consent on residents' autonomy and control over their medical decision making.Observational clinical studyLong-term care setting.LTCF personnel provided us with residents' names, as well as their professional assessment of resident ability to consent. We used Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) scores to assess the cognitive capacity of all residents to assess, and compare it to the assessment provided by LTCF personnel. A logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between LTCF assessment of resident ability to consent and BIMS score or confirmed diagnosis of dementia as seen from residents' medical charts. A self-administered questionnaire was filled out by the personnel of 10 LTCFs across RI, USA.LTCF personnel in 9 out of 10 recruited facilities reported that their assessment of resident ability to consent was based on subjective assessment of the resident as alert and oriented. There was a statistically significant relationship between the LTCF assessment of resident ability to consent and previously diagnosed dementia (OR: 0.211, 95% CI 0.107-0.415). Therefore, as BIMS scores increased, the likelihood that the resident would be deemed able to consent by LTCF personnel also increased. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant relationship between LTCF assessment of resident ability to consent and BIMS scores (OR: 1.430, 95% CI 1.274-1.605).There is no standard on obtaining IC for research studies conducted in LTCFs. We recommend that standardizing the process of obtaining IC in LTCFs can enhance the ability to perform research with LTCF residents.

Comprehension of written texts for the assessment of clinical competence and decision making in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical competence is the term used to describe an individual's capacity to express a choice regarding their participation in clinical procedures or experimental studies. Understanding the information provided is a prerequisite but consent forms are often lengthy and complicated. Alzheimer's disease patients may be vulnerable in written comprehension, due to cognitive deficits, but unfortunately to date, a specific evaluation of this ability is not included in periodical assessments.

METHODS

One hundred thirty Italian patients with Alzheimer's disease were compared with 130 controls in a comprehension task involving a simplified informed consent form. Their performance in this task was compared with their performance with two other types of reading material (a testament and a history text). In addition, the performance of a subgroup of very mild patients in this test was compared with their performance in a widely used interview for the assessment of clinical competence (MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research).

RESULTS

Good sensitivity and specificity of the cut-offs identified consent form and the other texts as good instruments for evaluation of written comprehension. The comprehension of consent form may be compromised since the early stages of Alzheimer's disease. Nevertheless, a simplified, written text may help patients in comparison with interviews (MacCAT-CR). Better performance was correlated to the standard of education and better cognitive functions.

CONCLUSION

Deficits regarding the comprehension of written texts and the consent form may be early in Alzheimer's disease patients and need to be investigated during periodical neuropsychological assessment. Comprehension may be facilitated by means of specific simplification strategies.

[Critical evaluation of the new legal regulation of pharmaceutical trials with adults who lack decision-making capacity: a survey of human research ethics committees in Germany]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, the drug law was revised in 2016 to include new regulations on clinical drug trials with adults who lack decision-making capacity. For the first time, trials with a merely indirect benefit (benefit for other patients with similar characteristics) will be possible if several safeguards are respected. The ethical justification and practicality of this regulation are controversially discussed.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Eliciting the current pertinent practice of research ethics committees in Germany regarding research with indirect benefit on adults without decision-making capacity; (2) exploring the possibilities and difficulties of implementing the new law.

METHODS

Semiquantitative, anonymous questionnaire among 249 members of all 53 human research ethics committees in Germany.

RESULTS

Eighty-four questionnaires were analyzed (response rate 34%). The participants disagreed on assigning research projects to the categories of research with direct benefit to the subject, with an indirect benefit, and without any benefit. Moreover, the criteria of minimum risk and minimum burden were interpreted heterogeneously. More than half of the participants judged the newly introduced research advance directive to be unnecessary, given the legal safeguards in place. The applicability of these directives was doubted because of the strict requirements for anticipatory informed consent and the restricted predictability of future research.

CONCLUSION

In spite of the new legal regulation, significant ethical uncertainties remain concerning research with indirect benefit on adults without decision-making capacity. It remains an open question whether we need a better explanation of the law, additional legal regulation, practice evaluation, or a completely new law.

Planning Ahead for Dementia Research Participation: Insights from a Survey of Older Australians and Implications for Ethics, Law and Practice

People with dementia have commonly been excluded from research. The adverse impacts of this exclusion are now being recognized and research literature, position statements, and ethics guidelines increasingly call for inclusion of people with dementia in research. However, few published studies investigate the views of potential participants on taking part in research should they experience dementia-related cognitive impairment. This cross-sectional survey examined the views of people aged sixty and older (n=174) attending hospital outpatient clinics about clinical research participation if they had dementia and impaired decision-making ability. Over 90 percent of respondents were agreeable to participating in a wide range of research activities, such as cognitive testing, physical measurements, imaging procedures, and blood draws. For drug studies, however, agreement dropped to 60 percent. Altruism was a strong motivator for research participation. In regard to who should be involved in decisions about their participation in research during periods of incapacity, respondents mostly preferred the person they appoint as their substitute decision-maker for healthcare matters (88%) or a doctor or health professional on the research team (78%). Over three-quarters (79%) expressed interest in making an advance research directive. The study findings are discussed in relation to law reforms in Australia that aim to strengthen respect and inclusion for people with impaired decision-making capacity, especially by providing frameworks for advance planning for research participation.

A Tale of Two Capacities: Including Children and Decisionally Vulnerable Adults in Biomedical Research

The participation of individuals who lack decision-making capacity is essential for advancing genomics research and neuroscience, but raises ethical and legal challenges relating to vulnerability, consent, and exclusion. Capacity differences between populations and individuals, the dynamics of capacity over time, and evolving legal consent and capacity regimes all raise uncertainty for researchers, institutional review boards, and policy makers. We review international ethical and legal best practices for including children and decisionally vulnerable adults in health research. Research ethics norms and literature tend to split such groups into narrow silos, which results in inconsistency and conceptual confusion, or to lump them together, which fails to take into account morally relevant differences. Through a narrative review of international norms, we identify challenges common to both groups, while drawing out distinctions reflecting their opposite capacity trajectories. Our comparison between these two populations clarifies underlying ethical concepts and offers opportunities for critique. Children need protection to foster their long-term autonomy, while decisionally vulnerable adults need to be provided with support in order to exercise their autonomy. This leads to differences in how researchers determine who lacks capacity, who has authority to consent, and what criteria guide such decision-making. We also consider how capacity issues color contemporary research governance debates over broad consent, data protection compliance, data sharing, and the return of individual research results and incidental findings.

Dementia and advance directives: some empirical and normative concerns

The authors of the paper 'Advance euthanasia directives: a controversial case and its ethical implications' articulate concerns and reasons with regard to the conduct of euthanasia in persons with dementia based on advance directives. While we agree on the conclusion that there needs to be more attention for such directives in the preparation phase, we disagree with the reasons provided by the authors to support their conclusions. We will outline two concerns with their reasoning by drawing on empirical research and by providing reasons that contradict their assumptions about competence of people with dementia and the (un)importance of happiness in reasoning about advance directives of people with dementia. We will draw attention to the important normative questions that have been overstepped in their paper, and we will outline why further research is required.

Assessment of the Perceived Acceptability of an Early Enrollment Strategy Using Advance Consent in Health Care-Associated Pneumonia

IMPORTANCE

Better treatment options are needed in life-threatening infections, including health care-associated pneumonia. Enrolling patients in antibacterial clinical trials before diagnosis may circumvent existing time-to-enrollment constraints. However, the acceptability of an early enrollment strategy using advance consent is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the perceived acceptability of an early enrollment strategy for enrolling patients in an antibacterial clinical trial before a pneumonia diagnosis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative, descriptive study used semistructured telephone interviews. Framed within a planned noninferiority pneumonia antibiotic trial, an early enrollment strategy was described and perceptions were assessed. Using this strategy, patients give consent to enroll before developing pneumonia, to be monitored by study staff, and to be randomly assigned a study antibiotic if pneumonia develops. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Fifty-two key stakeholders from across the United States, including 18 patients at risk of pneumonia, 12 caregivers, 10 representatives of institutional review boards, 7 investigators, and 5 study coordinators, were interviewed from June 20 to August 19, 2016.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Perceived acceptability of the early enrollment strategy.

RESULTS

Among the 52 stakeholders interviewed (ages 29-75 years; 14 women), patients and caregivers expressed no concerns about patients being approached about participation before developing pneumonia; however, some patients may experience anxiety on learning about their risk for pneumonia. No concerns with study staff accessing patients' medical records were expressed. The clarity of consent information was important for understanding the study rather than having the condition under investigation. Among patients, caregivers, and institutional review board representatives, preferences varied regarding opt-out and precedent autonomy procedures. Nearly all patients would be willing to join a trial using the early enrollment strategy and caregivers would be willing to provide proxy consent. Institutional review board representatives were supportive of the strategy and made recommendations for the study protocol, primarily around informed consent. Investigators and study coordinators believed the strategy would not be burdensome and offered suggestions to ensure its feasibility.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Results of the study suggest that the early enrollment strategy is acceptable. Future research should evaluate whether the strategy improves enrollment rates in registrational pneumonia trials and in trials of other acute infection syndromes with narrow enrollment windows and/or patients with transient decisional incapacity.

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.

Supporting autonomy of nursing home residents with dementia in the informed consent process

Background

In studies involving people with dementia, researchers have historically defaulted to seeking consent from a proxy, the assumption being that people with dementia are unable to provide their own informed consent. This choice denies people with dementia a voice in the consent process, thus disregarding their autonomy and agency. Recently, other options for improving the consent process have been explored.

Objective

This study aimed to determine whether nursing home residents with dementia could demonstrate an ability to provide their own informed consent as determined by the Evaluation to Sign Consent instrument.

Methods

As part of a larger study on the quality of life of nursing home residents, the Evaluation to Sign Consent was administered to 392 people diagnosed with dementia. Data on demographic variables, such as gender and age, as well as level of cognitive impairment, were also collected.

Results

Just over one-fifth (22%) of the residents with dementia were judged as having the capacity to provide their own informed consent to participate in this specific research project. Consistent with existing literature, capacity to consent was significantly, and negatively, associated with cognitive impairment.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that assuming all people diagnosed with dementia are unable to provide informed consent for research on the basis of cognitive test scores, or on clinical assessment alone, potentially denies them the autonomy to make a decision that they may be capable of making. Research involving people with mild-to-moderate dementia needs to consider evaluating whether potential participants have the capacity to provide their own consent.