Log in | Register

Why substitute decision makers provide or decline consent for ICU research studies: a questionnaire study

Sangeeta Mehta| Friederike Quittnat Pelletier| Maedean Brown| Cheryl Ethier| David Wells| Lisa Burry| Rod MacDonald
Original
Volume 38, Issue 1 / January , 2012

Pages 47 - 54

Abstract

Purpose

Consent for research participation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is often obtained from a substitute decision maker (SDM). In this study we explored SDMs’ reasons for declining or providing consent for research studies for critically ill adult family members.

Methods

Two questionnaires were developed, one directed at SDMs who agreed to have their relative participate in a research study (AGREE group), and another for SDMs who declined participation (DECLINE group). The questionnaires explored SDMs’ opinions about research in general, timing of research approach, the informed consent process, and reasons for agreeing or declining participation.

Results

Ninety-six SDMs completed the questionnaire (68 AGREE, 27 DECLINE). There were no differences between AGREE and DECLINE groups with respect to SDM demographics, perceived severity of illness of the patient, or the research study approach. The most common reasons for providing consent were potential for research to help others (91%), research is important for medical progress (88%), and trust in the medical team (87%). The most common reasons for declining consent were SDM was too anxious to consider research (67%), fear that patient would receive experimental treatment (37%), and concern about risks of the study (33%).

Conclusions

SDMs who agree to have a relative participate in an ICU research study are motivated by the potential benefit to the patient and altruism. SDMs who decline research participation, while not generally opposed to research, are fearful of study-related harm or discomfort for the patient, and are too anxious to consider a research study at that time.

Keywords

References

  1. Luce JM (2003) Is the concept of informed consent applicable to clinical research involving critically ill patients? Crit Care Med 31(3 Suppl):S153–S160
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  2. Luce JM, Cook DJ, Martin TR, Angus DC, Boushey HA, Curtis JR, Heffner JE, Lanken PN, Levy MM, Polite PY, Rocker GM, Truog RD (2004) The ethical conduct of clinical research involving critically ill patients in the United States and Canada: principles and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 170:1375–1384
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  3. Ciroldi M, Cariou A, Adrie C, Annane D, Castelain V, Cohen Y, Delahaye A, Joly LM, Galliot R, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Papazian L, Michel F, Barnes NK, Schlemmer B, Pochard F, Azoulay E, Famirea study group (2007) Ability of family members to predict patient’s consent to critical care research. Intensive Care Med 33:807–813
  4. Coppolino M, Ackerson L (2001) Do surrogate decision makers provide accurate consent for intensive care research? Chest 119:603–612
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  5. Van Stuijvenberg M, Suur MH, De Vos S, Tjiang GCH, Steyerberg EW, Derksen-Lubsen E, Moll HA (1998) Informed consent, parental awareness, and reasons for participating in a randomised controlled study. Arch Dis Child 79:120–125
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  6. Sammons HM, Atkinson M, Choonara I, Stephenson T (2007) What motivates British parents to consent for research? A questionnaire study. BMC Pediatr 7:12
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  7. Sugarman J, Cain C, Wallace R, Welsh-Bohmer KA (2001) How proxies make decisions about research for patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 49:1110–1119
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  8. Azoulay E, Chevret S, Leleu G, Pochard F, Barboteu M, Adrie C, Canoui P, Le Gall JR, Schlemmer B (2000) Half the families of intensive care unit patients experience inadequate communication with physicians. Crit Care Med 28:3044–3049
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  9. Chappuy H, Baruchel A, Leverger G, Oudot C, Brethon B, Haouy S, Auvrignon A, Davous D, Doz F, Tréluyer JM (2010) Parental comprehension and satisfaction in informed consent in paediatric clinical trials: a prospective study on childhood leukaemia. Arch Dis Child 95:800–804
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website
  10. Burns KEA, Zubrinich C, Tan W, Smith O, McDonald E, Skrobik Y, Saginur R, Jeffs L, Marshall J, Heslegrave R, Rubenfeld GD, Cook DJ (2010) Understanding barriers to recruitment and why patients and surrogates consent for Critical Care research: The Consent Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 181:A6047
  11. Barrett K, Athaide V, Smith OM, McDonald E, Pinto R, Stevenson J, Go S, Elman J, Friedrich JP, Cook DJ, Scales DC, Ferguson ND, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (2009) Proxy evaluations rating methods for inclusion into trials (PERMIT 2). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 179:A1573
  12. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Kentish-Barnes N, Chevret S, Aboab J, Adrie C, Annane D, Bleichner G, Bollaert PE, Darmon M, Fassier T, Galliot R, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Goulenok C, Goldgran-Toledano D, Hayon J, Jourdain M, Kaidomar M, Laplace C, Larche J, Liotier J, Papazian L, Poisson C, Reignier J, Al Saidi F, Schlemmer B (2005) Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:987–994
    • View reference on PubMed
    • View reference on publisher's website

Sign In

Connect with ICM

Top 5 Articles Editors Picks Supplement