Skip Navigation



Schizophrenia Bulletin Advance Access published online on November 10, 2005
Schizophrenia Bulletin, doi:10.1093/schbul/sbj026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
32/1/147    most recent
sbj026v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stroup, T S.
Right arrow Articles by Appelbaum, P. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stroup, T S.
Right arrow Articles by Appelbaum, P. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Article

Evaluation of "Subject Advocate" Procedures in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Schizophrenia Study

T Scott Stroup M.D., M.P.H.1* and Paul S. Appelbaum M.D.2
1 Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7160, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7160
2 University of Massachusetts Medical School

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
T Scott Stroup, E-mail: sstroup{at}med.unc.edu


  Abstract

Because the decision-making capacity of individuals with schizophrenia may fluctuate, additional protections for such persons who enroll in long-term research studies may be needed. For the NIMH-sponsored Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) schizophrenia study, new procedures were developed to help ensure an objective assessment of a patient's continued participation in the study if decision-making capacity lapsed. Each research participant had a subject advocate who could recommend that the subject be withdrawn from the study if capacity lapsed and continued participation was not in the subject's best interest. The main goals of the procedures were to protect the interests of subjects and to prevent unnecessary dropouts. We surveyed research personnel regarding the effectiveness and implementation of the procedures. Responses were received from 73 personnel at 49 research sites, representing 70% of possible respondents and 91% of eligible sites. A majority of respondents were favorably disposed toward subject advocates, and though most reported that the procedures had no discernible effect on study recruitment, subject autonomy, or subject retention, for those who reported an impact, it was almost always positive. Some respondents reported that the procedures helped by engaging family members and promoting a positive view of schizophrenia research. A majority thought that similar arrangements would be useful in future longitudinal research studies. Nonspecific benefits included good public relations and engagement of family members. Improved training regarding the procedures may be needed to achieve specific goals of enhanced patient autonomy and retention in the study.

Keywords: human-subject protections; longitudinal research; decision-making capacity; schizophrenia.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.