ArticleBMC medical ethics2022
(Re)Conceptualising 'good' proxy decision-making for research: the implications for proxy consent decision quality.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Article
- Review
- Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Life-Sustaining Treatment Communication: A Comparison Between Physicians and Surrogates.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Is it worse than death? Appraisal of health states among older adults and their relatives in Switzerland.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Proxy reporting in health: a scoping review of instructions, perspectives, and reporting experiences.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Families' Experiences of Surrogate Decision-Making and Challenges of Shared Decision-Making: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- 'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE).BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Informed proxy consent for ancient DNA research.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Response to Disease Burden and Access to Biologic Therapy in Patients with Severe Asthma, 2017-2022: An Analysis of the International Severe Asthma Registry [Letter].Journal of asthma and allergy · 2024Article
- Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Discrepancies between self- and proxy-rated quality of life in people living with dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
People who are unable to make decisions about participating in research rely on proxies to make a decision based on their wishes and preferences. However, patients rarely discuss their preferences about research and proxies find it challenging to determine what their wishes would be. While the process of informed consent has traditionally been the focus of research to improve consent decisions, the more conceptually complex area of what constitutes 'good' proxy decision-making for research has remained unexplored. Interventions are needed to improve and support proxy decision-making for research but are hampered by a lack of understanding about what constitutes decision quality in this context. A global increase in conditions associated with cognitive impairment such as dementia has led to an urgent need for more research into these conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent necessity to conduct research with large numbers of critically ill patients has made this need even more pressing. Much of the empirical research centres on the desire to improve decision accuracy, despite growing evidence that authenticity is more reflective of the aim of proxy decisions and concerns about the methodological flaws in authenticity-focused studies. Such studies also fail to take account of the impact of decision-making on proxies, or the considerable body of research on improving the quality of healthcare decisions. This paper reports a concept synthesis of the literature that was conducted to develop the first conceptualisation of 'good' proxy decisions about research participation. Elements of decision quality were identified across three stages of decision-making: proxy preparedness for decision-making which includes knowledge and understanding, and values clarification and preference elicitation; the role of uncertainty, decisional conflict, satisfaction and regret in the decision-making process; and preference linked outcomes and their effect. This conceptualisation provides an essential first step towards the future development of interventions to enhance the quality of proxy decision-making and ensure proxy decisions represent patients' values and preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.