scholarly journals When Does Therapeutic Misconception Affect Surrogates' or Subjects' Decision Making about Whether to Participate in Dementia Research?

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 678-685 ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 729-729
Author(s):  
J. Haberstroh ◽  
F. Oswald ◽  
J. Pantel

Author(s):  
Clark Benson ◽  
Amanda Friz ◽  
Shannon Mullen ◽  
Laura Block ◽  
Andrea Gilmore-Bykovskyi

The urgent need to expand enrollment in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (ADRD) research has synergized calls for an empiric science of research recruitment, yet, progress in this area is hindered by challenges to measuring views toward ADRD research. This paper reports ethical and methodological considerations identified through a prospective qualitative study investigating ADRD patient and caregiver views on research recruitment and participation surrounding acute illness. Ethical and methodological considerations were identified through a combination of memoing, collaboration with a Community Advisory Board (CAB), and analysis of interview data from ADRD patients ( N = 3) and/or caregivers ( N = 28). These included risk for undue influence attributable to role ambiguity/motivational misconceptions, divergent decision-making preferences, bias contributing to low referrals of ADRD participants, and difficulty answering abstract/hypothetical questions. Many considerations were successfully addressed with multifaceted, proactive strategies, and CAB input. Findings have implications for recruitment science research and the validity of inferences regarding research preferences.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 729-730
Author(s):  
A. Carvalho ◽  
P. Hernández-Marrero

1998 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shari A. Baskin ◽  
Jane Morris ◽  
Judith C. Ahronheim ◽  
Diane E. Meier ◽  
R. Sean Morrison

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty S. Black ◽  
Malory Wechsler ◽  
Linda Fogarty

Author(s):  
Gary Rodin ◽  
Sarah Hales

This chapter considers the challenges of treatment decision-making for patients with incurable disease and the benefits of having a neutral space for reflection. Though respect for patients’ autonomy, shared decision-making, and informed consent are considered to be central to modern healthcare, adherence to these principles may seem illusory when patients are desperate and when the risks and benefits of treatment are ambiguous. The potential challenges to patient autonomy and informed consent are explored in this chapter, with particular reference to the context of phase one trials. In this setting, the intent of the treatment may easily be misconstrued by patients (therapeutic misconception) and the chances of benefits versus risks incorrectly estimated by them (therapeutic misestimation). This chapter explores the value of Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM) in providing a neutral space for reflection and in allowing patients to explore their preferences regarding treatment while also considering the views of their healthcare providers and family members.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Peterson ◽  
Fiona Webster ◽  
Laura Elizabeth Gonzalez-Lara ◽  
Sarah Munce ◽  
Adrian M. Owen ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Severe brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability. Diagnosis and prognostication are difficult, and errors occur often. Novel neuroimaging methods can improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, especially in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDoC). Yet it is currently unknown how family caregivers understand this information, raising ethical concerns that disclosure of neuroimaging results could result in therapeutic misconception or false hope. Methods To examine these ethical concerns, we conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers of patients with PDoC who were enrolled in a concurrent neuroimaging research program designed to detect covert consciousness following severe brain injury. Caregivers held surrogate decision-making status for a patient. Interviews were conducted at two time points for each caregiver. The first interview occurred before the disclosure of neuroimaging results. The second occurred after disclosure. Descriptive analysis was applied to the data of four interview topics: (1) expectations for neuroimaging; (2) reactions to evidence of preserved cognition; (3) reactions to null results; and (4) understanding of the results and study. Results Twelve caregivers participated in the study; two caregivers shared surrogate decision-making status for one patient with PDoC. Twenty-one interviews were completed; one caregiver declined to participate in the post-disclosure interview. Three patients with PDoC associated with the study displayed evidence of covert consciousness. Overall, caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results. Caregivers who received results of covert consciousness were generally pleased. However, there was some variation in expectations and reactions to these data and null results. Conclusion This study, for the first time, reveals caregiver expectations for and reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with PDoC. Caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results, casting doubt on speculative ethical concerns regarding therapeutic misconception and false hope. However, disclosure of neuroimaging result could be improved. Pre-disclosure consultations might assist professionals in shaping caregiver expectations. Standardization of disclosure might also improve comprehension of the results.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 729-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Vollmann ◽  
J. Gather ◽  
M. Scholten

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document