Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31023383›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: a content analysis of participant information sheets for consultees and legal representatives in England and Wales.

Victoria Shepherd, Fiona Wood, Richard Griffith, Mark Sheehan, Kerenza Hood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Victoria ShepherdDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK. ShepherdVL1@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7687-0817
Fiona WoodDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.
Richard GriffithCollege of Human and Health Studies, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Mark SheehanEthox Centre, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.

Funding

Health and Care Research Wales NIHR-FS-2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch involving adults who lack the capacity to provide informed consent can be challenging. In England and Wales there are legal provisions for consulting with others who know the person with impaired capacity. The role of the 'proxy' (or 'surrogate') is to advise researchers about the person's wishes and feelings or to provide consent on the person's behalf for a clinical trial of a medicine. Information about the study is usually provided to the proxy; however, little information is available to proxies about their role, or the appropriate legal and ethical basis for their decision, to help inform their decision-making. The aim of this study was to analyse the written information that is provided to consultees and legal representatives.

methodsStudies including adults lacking capacity to consent which utilised consultees or legal representatives were identified using the UK Clinical Trials Gateway database. A representative sample (n = 30) were randomly selected. Information sheets and other study documents provided to proxies were obtained, and relevant content was extracted. Content analysis was conducted through four stages: decontextualisation of the unit of analysis, recontextualisation, categorisation, and compilation. The data were summarised narratively according to each theme and category.

resultsConsiderable variation was found in the written information sheets provided to proxies. Most directed proxies to consider the wishes and feelings of the person who lacked capacity and to consult with others during the decision-making process. However, a small number of studies extended the scope of the proxy's role to consider the person's suitability or eligibility for the study. Particular discrepancies were found in information provided to those acting as consultees or legal representatives in a professional, as opposed to a personal, capacity. Incorrect uses of terminology were frequently found, and a small number of studies inaccurately interpreted the law.

conclusionsDespite undergoing ethical review, study documents lacked essential information, incorrectly used terminology, and conflated professionals' clinical and representation roles. Future recommendations include ensuring proxies are provided with adequate and accurate information which complies with the legal frameworks. Further research is needed to explore the information and decision-making needs of those acting as consultees and legal representatives.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorConsent FormsEligibility DeterminationHumansInformation DisseminationMental CompetencyProxyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignThird-Party ConsentUnited Kingdomcontent analysisInformed consentmental capacityparticipant information sheetsproxyrandomised controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID31023383
PMCPMC6482489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.