Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2003 Dec;171(1):92-7.
doi: 10.1007/s00213-003-1503-1. Epub 2003 May 28.

Ethical considerations in psychopharmacological research involving decisionally impaired subjects

Affiliations
Review

Ethical considerations in psychopharmacological research involving decisionally impaired subjects

Donald L Rosenstein et al. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Dec.

Abstract

Rationale: Research subjects who are unable to provide informed consent must be protected from exploitation. The federal regulations governing human subjects research mandate additional protections for "mentally disabled" subjects but include neither a definition of this "vulnerable" population nor any guidance on what safeguards should be employed or how they should be implemented.

Objectives: This article begins with a definition of vulnerability due to a mental disorder in the context of the clinical research setting. It is organized along the following sequential phases of psychopharmacological research: study design and methodology; protocol review; subject recruitment and enrollment; conduct and monitoring of the study; and manuscript preparation and publication. Practical recommendations are then offered to clinical researchers and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for implementing additional protections for decisionally impaired subjects at each phase of the psychopharmacological research process.

Methods: A computer-assisted literature review was performed to identify descriptions of safeguards for decisionally impaired subjects. Recommendations for additional protections were also drawn from the authors' experiences with the IRB review process and the conduct and monitoring of clinical research with decisionally impaired subjects.

Results: The use of informed consent monitoring and the independent assessment of decision-making capacity are two feasible safeguards that IRBs can mandate for research with decisionally impaired subjects. There has been little systematic implementation of other safeguards such as research advance directives or prospective authorization for research participation.

Conclusions: Clinical investigators and IRBs are under considerable scrutiny with respect to the protection of decisionally impaired research subjects. There is a pressing need for data-driven strategies for the optimal protection of decisionally impaired research subjects.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. JAMA. 2000 May 24-31;283(20):2701-11 - PubMed
    1. Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Jan;157(1):67-74 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1993 Aug 19;329(8):573-6 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1539-44 - PubMed
    1. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987 Apr;17(2):20-4 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources