This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the informed, deliberative views of the older general public toward a policy of allowing surrogate consent for Alzheimer disease (AD) research.
Methods: A total of 503 persons aged 50+ recruited by random digit dialing were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: deliberation, education, or control. The deliberation group attended an all-day education/peer deliberation session; the education group received written information only. Participants were surveyed at baseline, after deliberation session (or equivalent time), and 1 month after the session, regarding their attitudes toward a policy of allowing surrogate consent for research studies of varying risks and potential benefits (a lumbar puncture study, a drug randomized controlled trial, a vaccine randomized controlled trial, and an early phase gene transfer trial).
Results: At baseline, a policy of surrogate consent for AD research was supported by 55%–91%, depending on the scenario. The education group had a transient increase in support for one research scenario after receiving the information materials. In the deliberation group, support for surrogate consent was higher after deliberation for all scenarios (67% to 97%), with much of the increase sustained 1 month after the deliberation session. No changes occurred in the control group. The study's limitations include self-selection of participants due to the demanding nature of attendance at the deliberation sessions.
Conclusions: This sample of the older general public generally supported a policy of surrogate consent for AD research at baseline. Their support increased with democratic deliberation involving informed, in-depth exploration of the relevant scientific and ethical issues.
GLOSSARY
- %AD =
- Alzheimer disease;
- DD=
- democratic deliberation;
- LAR =
- legally authorized representative;
- RCT =
- randomized controlled trial.
Footnotes
Study funding: Supported by NIH R01AG029550 and the Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholars Award in Bioethics.
-
Supplemental data at www.neurology.org
- Received February 10, 2011.
- Accepted April 7, 2011.
- Copyright © 2011 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.