MacCAT-CR: a way to legitimate the informed consent process in clinical research

Auteurs-es

DOI :

https://doi.org/10.26512/rbb.v16.2020.33892

Mots-clés :

Informed Consent, Clinical Trials, Research Ethics, Autonomy

Résumé

Informed consent is an essential ethical component of clinical trials, however, there are still many doubts about its proper realization nowadays. Consent is usually obtained formally, but there are doubts about the competence of participants in a clinical trial to decide whether to
participate. From there, a concern arises with the use of instruments capable of assessing the participants’ competence to express a decision. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT-CR) can be considered as an appropriate tool for assessing the informed consent process, as it can evaluate participants’ ability to express a decision about their participation
in each clinical trial. We review the application of MacCAT-CR in studies involving participants without cognitive impairment, representative of most individuals who generally participate in clinical trials. Our results demonstrate that few studies are evaluating the use of this tool to assess the competence of reasonable participants since most studies are focused on evaluating the consent process in individuals with limited autonomy. Here we discuss the ethical relevance of ensuring that the autonomy of research participants is manifested by assessing the effectiveness of the consent process, especially in developing countries.

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.

Bibliographies de l'auteur-e

Sergio Surugi de Siqueira, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba - PR, Brasil.

Sergio Surugi de Siqueira concluiu o doutorado em Ciências Biológicas com ênfase em Fisiologia na Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Chile em 2006. Pesquisador visitante no Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics da Georgetown University em 2018. Atualmente é Professor Colaborador no Programa de Pós Graduação em Bioética da Escola de Ciências da Vida da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná . É Farmacêutico-Bioquímico formado pela Universidade Federal do Paraná em 1984. Recebeu 24 prêmios e/ou homenagens, entre as quais, recebeu o título de COMENDADOR DA ORDEM ESTADUAL DO PINHEIRO, honraria máxima do Governo do Estado do Paraná. Participou do Grupo de Trabalho desenvolvimento do conceito da Plataforma Brasil da Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa e do Grupo de Trabalho para o desenvolvimento do Sistema Proethos da Organização Panamericana de Saúde. É membro relator titular da Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP)/Conselho Nacional de Saúde/Ministério da Saúde- Brasil.

Claudia Lucia Menegatti, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba - PR, Brasil.

Possui graduação em Psicologia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (1992), Mestrado em Psicologia da Infância e da Adolescência pela Universidade Federal do Paraná (2002) e Doutorado em Saúde da Criança e do Adolescente pela UFPR (2015). Atua como Psicóloga Clínica e no Magistério Superior na Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, com ênfase em Psicologia da Saúde e Análise Aplicada do Comportamento.

Kleber Bez Birollo Candiotto, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba - PR, Brasil

Possui graduação em Filosofia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (2000), Bacharelado em Direito pela PUCPR (2017), mestrado em Educação pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (2003) e doutorado em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal de São Carlos (2008). Professor do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia da PUCPR, na linha de pesquisa Ontologia e Epistemologia.

Renan Emilio Kintopp, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba - PR, Brasil.

Formado em Psicologia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), bolsista Fundação Araucária do Projeto Institucional de Bolsas de Iniciação Científica (PIBIC). Formação inicial com ênfase em Análise do Comportamento, Qualidade de vida de idosos e Bioética. Mestrando no Programa de Bioética da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná.

Références

Anandaiah A, Rock L. Twelve tips for teaching the informed consent conversation. Med Teach. 2019; 41(4):465–70.

Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. MacArthur competence assessment tool for clinical research (MacCAT-CR). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press; 2001. 84 p.

Baker DW. The meaning and the measure of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21(8):878–83.

Baón-Pérez BS, Álvarez-Marrodán I, Navío-Acosta M, Verdura-Vizcaíno EJ, Ventura-Faci T. Spanish Validation of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research Interview for Assessing Patients’ Mental Capacity to Consent to Clinical Research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics JERHRE. 2017;12(5):343–51.

Cohn EG, Jia H, Smith WC, Erwin K, Larson EL. Measuring the process and quality of informed consent for clinical research: development and testing. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011; 38(4):417–22.

Desch K, Li J, Kim S, Laventhal N, Metzger K, Siemieniak D, et al. Analysis of informed consent document utilization in a minimal-risk genetic study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(5):316–22.

Fanaroff AC, Li S, Webb LE, Miller V, Navar AM, Peterson ED, et al. An Observational Study of the Association of Video- Versus Text-Based Informed Consent With Multicenter Trial Enrollment: Lessons From the PALM Study (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(4):e004675.

Gillies K, Duthie A, Cotton S, Campbell MK. Patient reported measures of informed consent for clinical trials: A systematic review. PloS One. 2018;13(6):e0199775.

Hein IM, Troost PW, Lindeboom R, Benninga MA, Zwaan CM, van Goudoever JB, et al. Key factors in children’s competence to consent to clinical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):74.

Hein IM, Troost PW, Lindeboom R, de Vries MC, Zwaan CM, Lindauer RJL. Assessing children’s competence to consent in research by a standardized tool: a validity study. BMC Pediatr. 2012;12:156.

Hein IM, De Vries MC, Troost PW, Meynen G, Van Goudoever JB, Lindauer RJL. Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: Policy implications of new findings on children’s competence to consent to clinical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):76.

Henry J, Palmer BW, Palinkas L, Glorioso DK, Caligiuri MP, Jeste DV. Reformed consent: adapting to new media and research participant preferences. IRB. 2009; 31(2):1–8.

Hobza V, Hamrik Z, Bucksch J, De Clercq B. The Family Affluence Scale as an Indicator for Socioeconomic Status: Validation on Regional Income Differences in the Czech Republic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(12).

Hochhauser M. Informed consent and patient’s rights documents: a right, a rite, or a rewrite? Ethics Behav. 1999; 9(1):1–20.

Jeste DV, Palmer BW, Appelbaum PS, Golshan S, Glorioso D, Dunn LB, et al. A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007; 64(8):966–74.

Kant I, Ellington JW, Kant I. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals; with, On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co; 1993. 78 p

Lan T-H, Wu B-J, Chen H-K, Liao H-Y, Lee S-M, Sun H-J. Validation of Chinese version of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Psychiatry Res. 2013; 210(2):634–40.

McGregor KA, Ott MA. Banking the Future: Adolescent Capacity to Consent to Biobank Research. Ethics Hum Res. 2019; 41(4):15–22.

Michaud P-A, Blum RW, Benaroyo L, Zermatten J, Baltag V. Assessing an Adolescent’s Capacity for Autonomous Decision-Making in Clinical Care. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. 2015; 57(4):361–6.

Miranda V da C, Fêde AB de S, Lera AT, Ueda A, Antonangelo DV, Brunetti K, et al. [How to consent without understanding?]. Rev Assoc Medica Bras 1992. 2009; 55(3):328–34.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, for the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009; 339(jul21 1):b2535–b2535.

Murray B. Informed consent: what must a physician disclose to a patient? Virtual Mentor VM. 2012;14(7):563–6.

Nelson LR, Stupiansky NW, Ott MA. The Influence of Age, Health Literacy, and Affluence on Adolescents’ Capacity to Consent to Research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics JERHRE. 2016;11(2):115–21.

Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, Tilburt JC, Murad MH, McCormick JB. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:28.

Ossemane EB, Moon TD, Sacarlal J, Sevene E, Kenga D, Gong W, et al. Assessment of Parents’/Guardians’ Initial Comprehension and 1-Day Recall of Elements of Informed Consent Within a Mozambican Study of Pediatric Bacteremia. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics JERHRE. 2018;13(3):247–57.

Paris A, Brandt C, Cornu C, Maison P, Thalamas C, Cracowski J-L. Informed consent document improvement does not increase patients’ comprehension in biomedical research. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010; 69(3):231–7.

Rodrigues Filho E, Prado MM do, Prudente COM. Compreensão e legibilidade do termo de consentimento livre e esclarecido em pesquisas clínicas. Rev Bioét. 2014; 22(2):325–36.

Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. The New Era of Informed Consent: Getting to a Reasonable-Patient Standard Through Shared Decision Making. JAMA. 2016; 315(19):2063–4.

Supady A, Voelkel A, Witzel J, Gubka U, Northoff G. How is informed consent related to emotions and empathy? An exploratory neuroethical investigation. J Med Ethics. 2011; 37(5):311–7.

Suhonen R, Stolt M, Launis V, Leino-Kilpi H. Research on ethics in nursing care for older people: A literature review. Nursing Ethics. 2010;17(3):337-352. doi:10.1177/0969733010361445

Téléchargements

Publié-e

2023-06-25

Comment citer

Siqueira, S. S. de, Menegatti, C. L., Candiotto, K. B. B., & Kintopp, R. E. (2023). MacCAT-CR: a way to legitimate the informed consent process in clinical research. Revista Brasileira De Bioética, 16, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.26512/rbb.v16.2020.33892

Numéro

Vol. 16 (2020)

Rubrique

Artigos Originais

Licence

(c) Tous droits réservés Revista Brasileira de Bioética 2021

Licence Creative Commons

Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.