Advance Research Directives: Legal and Ethical Issues and Insights from a National Survey of Dementia Researchers in Australia

Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning

BACKGROUND

Anticipatory planning in the UK focuses on supporting people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to express their wishes about future care through processes such as advance care planning. Other countries have extended anticipatory planning to include processes for people to prospectively express their preferences about research participation. Advance research planning (ARP) is thought to extend autonomy and ensure that 'proxy' decisions about research are based on their wishes and preferences.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with two stakeholder groups (members of the public including people living with capacity-affecting conditions and family members; researchers and other professionals) who were recruited via research registries and other routes. Online questionnaires were used to capture the perspectives of the two groups. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 327 participants (members of the public n = 277, professionals n = 50) completed the survey (November 2022 - March 2023). ARP was supported by 97% of public contributors and 94% of professionals. Participants thought that ARP should include the person's general wishes about research, specific types of studies, and who should make decisions on their behalf. They identified a number of challenges, including how ARP could take account of changes in individuals' preferences or circumstances whilst protecting their rights and interests. Implementation barriers included the potential time, complexity, and cost involved. These could be addressed by embedding ARP in existing anticipatory planning pathways and aligning it with other research enrolment activities. Relationships and trust played a key role, including underpinning who should support the delivery of ARP, how they are trained, and when it is undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

There were high levels of support for introducing ARP in the UK. Further research should explore practical barriers and stakeholder concerns and identify any unintended consequences. Future activities should include developing ARP interventions alongside training and other resources, and also focus on public awareness campaigns, and engaging policymakers and other stakeholders.

Making an Advance Research Directive: An Interview Study with Adults Aged 55 and Older with Interests in Dementia Research

Many people with dementia are interested in taking part in research, including when they no longer have capacity to provide informed consent. Advance research directives (ARD) enable people to document their wishes about research participation prior to becoming decisionally incapacitated. However, there are few available ARD resources. This Australian interview study elicited the views of people aged 55 years and older about the content of an ARD form and guidance booklet and processes to support research planning. Participants (n = 25; 55 to 83 years) had interests in dementia research. All participants described the ARD materials as easy to understand, and all expressed willingness to take part in future research. Nearly half believed that an ARD should be legally enforceable, while others saw it as a nonbinding document to guide decisions about their participation in research. Close family members were preferred as proxy decision-makers. The ARD form and guidance booklet may be adapted for use elsewhere.

Advance planning for research participation: Time to translate this innovation into practice

OBJECTIVES

Advance planning for research is a process that involves thinking about, discussing and expressing preferences for taking part in research during future periods of incapacity. The process may include making an advance research directive and naming trusted people to be involved in decisions about research participation. Advance research planning could help to overcome barriers to including people with dementia in research. To encourage innovation in this area, this article presents recommendations informed by a stakeholder workshop that brought together consumer representatives and representatives active in dementia, ageing and health-related research, policy-making, advocacy and service delivery in health and aged care.

METHODS

An online workshop where 15 stakeholders shared perspectives and suggestions for implementing advance research planning, with a focus on research involving people with dementia.

RESULTS

Raising awareness of advance research planning requires multi-faceted strategies. Training and resources are needed for researchers, ethics committees and organisations regarding this form of advance planning and the use of research directives. Like any form of advance planning, planning ahead for research must be a voluntary, informed and person-centred process. There is a lack of uniform legal rules on research involving people who lack the capacity to consent; however, advance research directives could, in principle, inform decisions about research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

As a matter of law, policy and practice, people are encouraged to plan ahead in many areas of their life. Research planning has been relatively neglected, and the recommendations offered here aim to encourage innovation in research and implementation in this area.

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.

Advance Research Directives: Dementia Researchers' Views on a Prototype Directive and Implementation Strategies

Advance research directives (ARDs) enable people to document preferences for future research participation in the event of incapacity. This article reports on interviews with 11 dementia researchers in Australia that focused on the content of a prototype ARD and processes for making and using ARDs. Participants agreed that an ARD template should provide information to explain research and the rationale for making a directive, allow the person to nominate trusted individuals to be involved in future decisions, and record the person's general willingness or unwillingness to be involved in research. Providing a list of various research activities elicits preferences and risk tolerances in more detail. Priority groups for ARD implementation include people with a diagnosis involving progressive cognitive impairment and people interested in research. Researchers and health and legal professionals have a role in promoting ARDs. Our findings suggest that, as a voluntary strategy, ARDs could promote appropriate inclusion in research.

Older Persons' and Their Caregivers' Perspectives and Experiences of Research Participation With Impaired Decision-Making Capacity: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Human research ethics statements support equitable inclusion of diverse groups. Yet older people are under-represented in clinical research, especially those with impaired decision-making capacity. The aim of this study was to identify perspectives and experiences of older persons and their caregivers of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Scoping review of literature and online sources in January-February 2019 (updated June 2020) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. English-language peer-reviewed research articles and Australian online narratives were included. Data were tabulated and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

From 4171 database records and 93 online resources, 22 articles (2000-2019, 82% United States, 16 first authors) and one YouTube webinar (2018) were initially included; updated searches yielded an additional article (2020) and YouTube webinar (2020). Studies were heterogeneous in terminology, methods and foci, with hypothetical scenarios, quantitative analyses and examination of proxy consent predominating. Participants (n=7331) were older persons (71%), caregivers of older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (23%) and older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (6%). Synthesis identified two themes: willingness to participate and decision-making approaches.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Research participation by older persons with dementia may be optimized through reducing risks and burdens and increasing benefits for participants, greater consumer input into study development, and shared and supported decision-making. Older persons' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity require investigation in a greater range of countries and conditions other than dementia, and dissemination through more varied media.