Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Psychiatry 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Dementia | Research article

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

Authors: Karin Jongsma, Julia Perry, Silke Schicktanz, Katrin Radenbach

Published in: BMC Psychiatry | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Kim SYK, Kim M, Ryan KA, et al. How important is accuracy of surrogate decision-making for research participation? PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54790.CrossRef Kim SYK, Kim M, Ryan KA, et al. How important is accuracy of surrogate decision-making for research participation? PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54790.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Livingston G, Leavey G, Manela M, et al. Making decisions for people with dementia who lack capacity: qualitative study of family carers in UK. Br Med J. 2010;341:c4184.CrossRef Livingston G, Leavey G, Manela M, et al. Making decisions for people with dementia who lack capacity: qualitative study of family carers in UK. Br Med J. 2010;341:c4184.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effects on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:336–46.CrossRef Wendler D, Rid A. Systematic review: the effects on surrogates of making treatment decisions for others. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:336–46.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Davis JK. The concept of precedent autonomy. Bioethics. 2002;16(3):114–33.CrossRef Davis JK. The concept of precedent autonomy. Bioethics. 2002;16(3):114–33.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Vollmann J. Advance directives in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4:161–7.CrossRef Vollmann J. Advance directives in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Med Health Care Philos. 2001;4:161–7.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Berghmans RLP. Advance directives and dementia. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;913:105–10.CrossRef Berghmans RLP. Advance directives and dementia. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2000;913:105–10.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Dworkin R. Life’s dominion. An argument about abortion and euthanasia. London: Harper Collins Publishers; 1993. Dworkin R. Life’s dominion. An argument about abortion and euthanasia. London: Harper Collins Publishers; 1993.
10.
go back to reference Dresser R. Dworkin on dementia: elegant theory, questionable policy. Hast Cent Rep. 1995;25(6):32–8.CrossRef Dresser R. Dworkin on dementia: elegant theory, questionable policy. Hast Cent Rep. 1995;25(6):32–8.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Andorno R, Gennet E, Jongsma KR, Elger B. Integrating advance research directives into the European legal framework. Eur J Health Law. 2016;23:49–64.CrossRef Andorno R, Gennet E, Jongsma KR, Elger B. Integrating advance research directives into the European legal framework. Eur J Health Law. 2016;23:49–64.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Muthappan P, Forster H, Wendler D. Research advance directives: protection or obstacle? Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:2389–91.CrossRef Muthappan P, Forster H, Wendler D. Research advance directives: protection or obstacle? Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162:2389–91.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bravo G, Trottier L, Dubois M-F, et al. Does promoting research advance planning in a general elderly population enhance completion of a research directive and proxies' predictive ability? A randomized controlled trial. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2016;7(3):183–92.CrossRef Bravo G, Trottier L, Dubois M-F, et al. Does promoting research advance planning in a general elderly population enhance completion of a research directive and proxies' predictive ability? A randomized controlled trial. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2016;7(3):183–92.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Jongsma KR, van de Vathorst S. Beyond competence: advance directives in dementia research. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33(2):167–80.CrossRef Jongsma KR, van de Vathorst S. Beyond competence: advance directives in dementia research. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2015;33(2):167–80.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference MacKenzie MA, Smith-Howell E, Bomba PA, Meghani SH. Respecting choices and related models of advance care planning: a systematic review of published evidence. M J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(6):897–907.CrossRef MacKenzie MA, Smith-Howell E, Bomba PA, Meghani SH. Respecting choices and related models of advance care planning: a systematic review of published evidence. M J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(6):897–907.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Karlawish J, Casarett D, James B. Alzheimer’s disease patients’ and caregivers’ capacity, competency, and reasons to enroll in an early-phase Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(12):2019–24.CrossRef Karlawish J, Casarett D, James B. Alzheimer’s disease patients’ and caregivers’ capacity, competency, and reasons to enroll in an early-phase Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(12):2019–24.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Karlawish J, Rubright J, Casarett D, Cary M, Ten Have T, Sankar P. Older adults’ attitudes toward enrolment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:182–98.CrossRef Karlawish J, Rubright J, Casarett D, Cary M, Ten Have T, Sankar P. Older adults’ attitudes toward enrolment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:182–98.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Seymour J, Gott M, Bellamy G, Ahmedzai S-H, Clark D. Planning for the end of life: the views of older people about advance care statements. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:57–68.CrossRef Seymour J, Gott M, Bellamy G, Ahmedzai S-H, Clark D. Planning for the end of life: the views of older people about advance care statements. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:57–68.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wendler D, Martinez RA, 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;159:585–91.CrossRef Wendler D, Martinez RA, 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;159:585–91.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference De Vries R, Ryan KA, Stanczyk A, Appelbaum PS, et al. Public’s approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: cautious pragmatism. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;21(4):364–72.CrossRef De Vries R, Ryan KA, Stanczyk A, Appelbaum PS, et al. Public’s approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: cautious pragmatism. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;21(4):364–72.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Ries N, Mansfield E, Sanson-Fisher R. Planning ahead for dementia research participation: insights from a survey of older Australians and implications for ethics, Law and Practice. J Bioeth Inq. 2019;16(3):415–29.CrossRef Ries N, Mansfield E, Sanson-Fisher R. Planning ahead for dementia research participation: insights from a survey of older Australians and implications for ethics, Law and Practice. J Bioeth Inq. 2019;16(3):415–29.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Warner J, Nomani E. Giving consent in dementia research. Lancet. 2008;372(9634):183–5.CrossRef Warner J, Nomani E. Giving consent in dementia research. Lancet. 2008;372(9634):183–5.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bravo G, Dubois M-F, Pâquet M. Advance directives for health care and research: prevalence and correlates. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2003;17(4):215–22.CrossRef Bravo G, Dubois M-F, Pâquet M. Advance directives for health care and research: prevalence and correlates. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2003;17(4):215–22.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Stocking EB, Hougham GW, Danner DD, Patterson MB, Whitehouse PJ. Sachs GA speaking of research advance directives: planning for future research participation. Neurology. 2006;66(9):1361–6.CrossRef Stocking EB, Hougham GW, Danner DD, Patterson MB, Whitehouse PJ. Sachs GA speaking of research advance directives: planning for future research participation. Neurology. 2006;66(9):1361–6.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Kim SYH, Kim HM, Langa KM, Karlawish JH, Knopman DS, Appelbaum PS. Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology. 2009;72(2):149–55.CrossRef Kim SYH, Kim HM, Langa KM, Karlawish JH, Knopman DS, Appelbaum PS. Surrogate consent for dementia research: a national survey of older Americans. Neurology. 2009;72(2):149–55.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Perry J, Schicktanz S, Jongsma K. Forschungsvorausverfügungen: Noch viele offene Fragen. Dtsch Arztebl. 2018;115, 39 A-1696 / B-1430 / C-1416. Perry J, Schicktanz S, Jongsma K. Forschungsvorausverfügungen: Noch viele offene Fragen. Dtsch Arztebl. 2018;115, 39 A-1696 / B-1430 / C-1416.
28.
go back to reference Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:623–30.CrossRef Coyne IT. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? J Adv Nurs. 1997;26:623–30.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative Methods for Health Research: Sage Publications Ltd; 2014. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative Methods for Health Research: Sage Publications Ltd; 2014.
31.
go back to reference de Bruijn RF, Akoudad S, Cremers LG, Hofman A, Niessen WJ, van der Lugt A, Koudstaal PJ, Vernooij MW, Ikram MA. Determinants. MRI correlates, and prognosis of mild cognitive impairment: the Rotterdam Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42(Suppl 3):S239–49.CrossRef de Bruijn RF, Akoudad S, Cremers LG, Hofman A, Niessen WJ, van der Lugt A, Koudstaal PJ, Vernooij MW, Ikram MA. Determinants. MRI correlates, and prognosis of mild cognitive impairment: the Rotterdam Study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;42(Suppl 3):S239–49.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Karlawish J, Kim SYH, Knopman D, van Dyck CH, James BD, Marson D. The views of Alzheimer disease patients and their study partners on proxy consent for clinical trial enrolment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16:240–7.CrossRef Karlawish J, Kim SYH, Knopman D, van Dyck CH, James BD, Marson D. The views of Alzheimer disease patients and their study partners on proxy consent for clinical trial enrolment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;16:240–7.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Henderson C, Jackson SM, Young AS, Strauss JL. How should we implement psychiatric advance directives? Views of consumers, caregivers, mental health providers and researchers. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2010;37(6):447–58.CrossRef Henderson C, Jackson SM, Young AS, Strauss JL. How should we implement psychiatric advance directives? Views of consumers, caregivers, mental health providers and researchers. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2010;37(6):447–58.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Motivations for people with cognitive impairment to complete an advance research directive – a qualitative interview study
Authors
Karin Jongsma
Julia Perry
Silke Schicktanz
Katrin Radenbach
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Psychiatry / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-244X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02741-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Psychiatry 1/2020 Go to the issue