Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale)

Authors: Victoria Shepherd, Kerenza Hood, Katie Gillies, Fiona Wood

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recruitment of adults lacking the capacity to consent to trials requires the involvement of an alternative ‘proxy’ decision-maker, usually a family member. This can be challenging for family members, with some experiencing emotional and decisional burdens. Interventions to support proxy consent decisions in non-emergency settings are being developed. However, the ability to evaluate interventions is limited due to a lack of measures that capture outcomes of known importance, as identified through a core outcome set (COS).

Methods

Using established measure development principles, a four-stage process was used to develop and refine items for a new measure of proxy decision quality: (1) findings from a recent scoping review and consensus study were reviewed to identify items for inclusion in the scale and any existing outcome measures, (2) assessment of content coverage by existing measures and identification of insufficiency, (3) construction of a novel scale, and (4) cognitive testing to explore comprehension of the scale and test its content adequacy through interviews with family members of people with impaired capacity.

Results

A range of outcome measures associated with healthcare decision-making and informed consent decisions, such as the Decisional Conflict Scale, were identified in the scoping review. These measures were mapped against the key constructs identified in the COS to assess content coverage. Insufficient coverage of areas such as proxy-specific satisfaction and knowledge sufficiency by existing instruments indicated that a novel measure was needed. An initial version of a combined measure (the CONCORD scale) was drafted and tested during cognitive interviews with eleven family members. The interviews established comprehension, acceptability, feasibility, and content adequacy of the scale. Participants suggested re-phrasing and re-ordering some questions, leading to the creation of a revised version.

Conclusions

The CONCORD scale provides a brief measure to evaluate the quality of decisions made on behalf of an adult who lacks the capacity to consent in non-emergency settings, enabling the evaluation of interventions to improve proxy decision quality. Initial evaluation indicates it has content adequacy and is feasible to use. Further statistical validation work is being undertaken.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21:694.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Witham MD, Anderson E, Carroll C, Dark PM, Down K, Hall AS, et al. Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process. Trials. 2020;21:694.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Mundi S, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M. Systematic review on the inclusion of patients with cognitive impairment in hip fracture trials: a missed opportunity? Can J Surg. 2014;57:E141–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mundi S, Chaudhry H, Bhandari M. Systematic review on the inclusion of patients with cognitive impairment in hip fracture trials: a missed opportunity? Can J Surg. 2014;57:E141–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Sheehan KJ, Fitzgerald L, Hatherley S, Potter C, Ayis S, Martin FC, et al. Inequity in rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2019;48:489–97.PubMedCrossRef Sheehan KJ, Fitzgerald L, Hatherley S, Potter C, Ayis S, Martin FC, et al. Inequity in rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2019;48:489–97.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Taylor JS, DeMers SM, Vig EK, Borson S. The disappearing subject: exclusion of people with cognitive impairment and dementia from geriatrics research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:413–9.PubMedCrossRef Taylor JS, DeMers SM, Vig EK, Borson S. The disappearing subject: exclusion of people with cognitive impairment and dementia from geriatrics research. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:413–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Feldman MA, Bosett J, Collet C, Burnham-Riosa P. Where are persons with intellectual disabilities in medical research? A survey of published clinical trials. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014;58:800–9.PubMedCrossRef Feldman MA, Bosett J, Collet C, Burnham-Riosa P. Where are persons with intellectual disabilities in medical research? A survey of published clinical trials. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014;58:800–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Shepherd V. An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent. Trials. 2020;21:445.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shepherd V. An under-represented and underserved population in trials: methodological, structural, and systemic barriers to the inclusion of adults lacking capacity to consent. Trials. 2020;21:445.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference HMSO, London. Mental Capacity Act 2005. 2005. HMSO, London. Mental Capacity Act 2005. 2005.
11.
go back to reference Ciccone A, Sterzi R, Crespi V, Defanti CA, Pasetti C. Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: the patient’s point of view. CED. 2001;12:335–40. Ciccone A, Sterzi R, Crespi V, Defanti CA, Pasetti C. Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: the patient’s point of view. CED. 2001;12:335–40.
12.
go back to reference Demarquay G, Derex L, Nighoghossian N, Adeleine P, Philippeau F, Honnorat J, et al. Ethical issues of informed consent in acute stroke. CED. 2005;19:65–8. Demarquay G, Derex L, Nighoghossian N, Adeleine P, Philippeau F, Honnorat J, et al. Ethical issues of informed consent in acute stroke. CED. 2005;19:65–8.
13.
go back to reference Iverson E, Celious A, Kennedy CR, Shehane E, Eastman A, Warren V, et al. Factors affecting stress experienced by surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients: implications for nursing practice. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30:77–85.PubMedCrossRef Iverson E, Celious A, Kennedy CR, Shehane E, Eastman A, Warren V, et al. Factors affecting stress experienced by surrogate decision makers for critically ill patients: implications for nursing practice. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30:77–85.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Sugarman J, Cain C, Wallace R, Welsh-Bohmer KA. How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:1110–9.PubMedCrossRef Sugarman J, Cain C, Wallace R, Welsh-Bohmer KA. How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:1110–9.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Mason S, Barrow H, Phillips A, Eddison G, Nelson A, Cullum N, et al. Brief report on the experience of using proxy consent for incapacitated adults. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:61–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mason S, Barrow H, Phillips A, Eddison G, Nelson A, Cullum N, et al. Brief report on the experience of using proxy consent for incapacitated adults. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:61–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, Sheehan M, Hood K. Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21:30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shepherd V, Wood F, Griffith R, Sheehan M, Hood K. Development of a decision support intervention for family members of adults who lack capacity to consent to trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21:30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gillies K, Campbell MK. Development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial: a conceptual framework. Trials. 2019;20:401.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gillies K, Campbell MK. Development and evaluation of decision aids for people considering taking part in a clinical trial: a conceptual framework. Trials. 2019;20:401.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Feldman-Stewart D, Brennenstuhl S, McIssac K, Austoker J, Charvet A, Hewitson P, et al. A systematic review of information in decision aids. Health Expect. 2007;10:46–61.PubMedCrossRef Feldman-Stewart D, Brennenstuhl S, McIssac K, Austoker J, Charvet A, Hewitson P, et al. A systematic review of information in decision aids. Health Expect. 2007;10:46–61.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, et al. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:S12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, et al. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:S12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Netemeyer R, Bearden W, Sharma S. Scaling procedures: issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2003.CrossRef Netemeyer R, Bearden W, Sharma S. Scaling procedures: issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: United States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2003.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Shepherd V. (Re)Conceptualising ‘good’ proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23:75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shepherd V. (Re)Conceptualising ‘good’ proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23:75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Shepherd V, Wood F, Robling M, Randell E, Hood K. Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER Study); 2021. Shepherd V, Wood F, Robling M, Randell E, Hood K. Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER Study); 2021.
25.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRef Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Williamson PR, et al. Guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a Core Outcome Set. 2016. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Williamson PR, et al. Guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a Core Outcome Set. 2016.
29.
go back to reference Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:139–47.PubMedCrossRef Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:139–47.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:281–92.PubMedCrossRef Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:281–92.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Chakrabartty SN. Integration of various scales for measurement of insomnia. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2021;2:102–11. Chakrabartty SN. Integration of various scales for measurement of insomnia. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2021;2:102–11.
33.
go back to reference Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Graesser AC, Wiemer-Hastings K, Kreuz R, Wiemer-Hastings P, Marquis K. QUAID: a questionnaire evaluation aid for survey methodologists. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000;32:254–62.PubMedCrossRef Graesser AC, Wiemer-Hastings K, Kreuz R, Wiemer-Hastings P, Marquis K. QUAID: a questionnaire evaluation aid for survey methodologists. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000;32:254–62.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Krosnick JA. Questionnaire design. In: Vannette DL, Krosnick JA, editors. The Palgrave handbook of survey research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 439–55.CrossRef Krosnick JA. Questionnaire design. In: Vannette DL, Krosnick JA, editors. The Palgrave handbook of survey research. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 439–55.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Harris-Kojetin LD, Fowler FJ, Brown JA, Schnaier JA, Sweeny SF. The use of cognitive testing to develop and evaluate CAHPSTM 1.0 core survey items. Med Care. 1999;37:MS10–21.PubMedCrossRef Harris-Kojetin LD, Fowler FJ, Brown JA, Schnaier JA, Sweeny SF. The use of cognitive testing to develop and evaluate CAHPSTM 1.0 core survey items. Med Care. 1999;37:MS10–21.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:229–38.PubMedCrossRef Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:229–38.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596.CrossRef Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Yu CH, Ke C, Jovicic A, Hall S, Straus SE, Cantarutti P, et al. Beyond pros and cons – developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19:186.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Yu CH, Ke C, Jovicic A, Hall S, Straus SE, Cantarutti P, et al. Beyond pros and cons – developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19:186.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Phillippi J, Lauderdale J. A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res. 2018;28:381–8.PubMedCrossRef Phillippi J, Lauderdale J. A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res. 2018;28:381–8.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13:201–16.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13:201–16.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Linder SK, Swank PR, Vernon SW, Mullen PD, Morgan RO, Volk RJ. Validity of a low literacy version of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85:521–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Linder SK, Swank PR, Vernon SW, Mullen PD, Morgan RO, Volk RJ. Validity of a low literacy version of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85:521–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Gillies K, Elwyn G, Cook J. Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials. 2014;15:307.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gillies K, Elwyn G, Cook J. Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials. 2014;15:307.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Kearing SA, Clay KF, O’Connor AM. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:130–3.PubMedCrossRef Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Kearing SA, Clay KF, O’Connor AM. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:130–3.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference O’Connor AM. User manual - Decision Self-Efficacy Scale; 2002. O’Connor AM. User manual - Decision Self-Efficacy Scale; 2002.
52.
go back to reference Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;89:1162–75.CrossRef Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. Framing decisions: hypothetical and real. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2002;89:1162–75.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the Combined Scale for Proxy Informed Consent Decisions (CONCORD scale)
Authors
Victoria Shepherd
Kerenza Hood
Katie Gillies
Fiona Wood
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06787-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue