Cited by 9Ethics in Clinical ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perspectives of decisional surrogates and patients regarding critical illness genetic research

Open access

Abstract

Background: Critical illness research is challenging due to disease severity and because patients are frequently incapacitated. Surrogates called upon to provide consent might not accurately represent patient preferences. Though commonplace, genetic data collection adds complexity in this context. We undertook this investigation to understand whether surrogate decision makers would be receptive to permitting participation in a critical illness genetics study and whether their decision making was consistent with that of the patient represented. Methods: We invited individuals identified as surrogates for critically ill adults, if required, as well as patients once recovered to participate in a survey designed to understand attitudes about genetic research. Associations between dependent (receptivity to participation, concordance of responses) and independent variables were tested using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: Most members of the entire surrogate sample (n = 439) reported familiarity with research, including genetic research; tended to view research as useful; and were receptive to allowing their family member participate (with 39.6% and 38.1% stating that this would be “very” and “somewhat likely,” respectively) even absent direct benefit. Willingness to participate was similar comparing genetic and nongenetic studies (χ2 [1, n = 439] = 0.00127, p = .972), though respondents expressed worry regarding lack of confidentiality of genetic data. Responses were concordant in 70.8% of the 192 surrogate–patient pairs analyzed. In multivariate analysis, African American race was associated with less receptivity to genetic data collection (p < .05). No factors associated with concordance of surrogate–patient response were identified. Conclusions: Surrogates' receptivity to critical illness research was not influenced by whether the study entailed collection of genetic data. While more than two-thirds of surrogate-patient responses for participation in genetics research were concordant, concerns expressed regarding genetic data often related to breach of confidentiality. Emphasizing safeguards in place to minimize such breeches might prove an effective strategy for enhancing recruitment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23294515.2015.1039148

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.2990/1471-5457(2004)23[60:AAOAHR]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  2. 10.1164/rccm.200406-726ST · DOI
  3. 10.1007/s00134-011-2430-y · DOI
  4. Brothers K. B., 2012, American Journal of Medical Genetics (Part A), 155, 2982, 10.1002/ajmg.a.34304 · DOI
  5. 10.1164/rccm.201208-1537OC · DOI
  6. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.515130 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/s00134-007-0582-6 · DOI
  8. 10.1056/NEJM199907013410106 · DOI
  9. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823c8d03 · DOI
  10. 10.1378/chest.119.2.603 · DOI
  11. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1999.07048.x · DOI
  12. 10.1001/jama.289.15.1963 · DOI
  13. 10.1164/ajrccm.164.2.2011028 · DOI
  14. 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.58 · DOI
  15. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000206113.47535.2A · DOI
  16. 10.1038/tpj.2009.61 · DOI
  17. 10.1378/chest.08-0633 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.11.002 · DOI
  19. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f26fe6 · DOI
  20. 10.7326/0003-4819-138-7-200304010-00013 · DOI
  21. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0437 · DOI
  22. 10.1080/15265160802478404 · DOI
  23. 10.1378/chest.11-3199 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/gim.2012.142 · DOI
  25. 10.1525/jer.2013.8.3.53 · DOI
  26. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000054901.80339.01 · DOI
  27. 10.1097/00075198-200312000-00013 · DOI
  28. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815f1e00 · DOI
  29. 10.1001/jama.290.3.360 · DOI
  30. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318258ff19 · DOI
  31. 10.1097/00003246-200110000-00022 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00265-4 · DOI
  33. 10.1097/00003246-200102000-00002 · DOI
  34. 10.1164/rccm.200303-430CP · DOI
  35. 10.1164/rccm.201307-1235LE · DOI
  36. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a-84a43 · DOI
  37. 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e38f9e · DOI
  38. 10.1126/science.1199000 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 9

Metadata

Authors
Freeman, B. D., Bolcic-Jankovic, D., Kennedy, C. R., LeBlanc, J., Eastman, A., Barillas, J., Wittgen, C. M., Lindsey, K., Mahmood, R. S., & Clarridge, B. R.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Freeman, Bradley D.
Venue
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
Published
2015-05
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
39-47
ISSN
  • 2329-4515 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-4523
OpenAlex
W2028487479
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AJOB Empirical Bioethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM080591)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
surrogate decision-making, patient consent, willingness to participate in research, African American race, research recruitment, critically ill patients

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review