Retention of Study Partners in Longitudinal Studies of Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND: Study partners are required for all participants at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRCs). Study partners' attitudes and beliefs may contribute to missed visits and negatively impact retention of participants in longitudinal AD studies. OBJECTIVE: Study partners (N = 212) of participants (Clinical Dementia Rating® [CDR]≤2) at four ADRCs were randomly surveyed to examine their facilitators and barriers to continued participation in AD studies. METHODS: Reasons for participation were analyzed with factor analysis and regression analysis. Effects of complaints and goal fulfillment on attendance were estimated with fractional logistic models. Open-ended responses were characterized with a Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic model. RESULTS: Study partners participated for personal benefit and altruism. They emphasized personal benefits more when their participants had a CDR > 0 than when they had a CDR = 0. This difference declined with participant age. The majority of study partners rated their ADRC participation as positive and meeting their goals. Although half reported at least one complaint, very few regretted participating. Those who reported that ADRC participation fulfilled their goals or had fewer complaints were more likely to have perfect attendance. Study partners requested more feedback about test results and better management of study visits. CONCLUSION: Study partners are motivated by both personal and altruistic goals. The salience of each goal depends on their trust in researchers and the participant's cognitive status and age. Retention may improve with perceived goal fulfillment and fewer complaints. Potential areas for improving retention are providing more information about the participant's test results and better management of study visits.

From paper to screen: regulatory and operational considerations for modernizing the informed consent process.

Electronic platforms provide an opportunity to improve the informed consent (IC) process by permitting elements shown to increase research participant understanding and satisfaction, such as graphics, self-pacing, meaningful engagement, and access to additional information on demand. However, including these elements can pose operational and regulatory challenges for study teams and institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for the ethical conduct and oversight of research. We examined the experience of two study teams at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers who chose to move from a paper-based IC process to an electronic informed consent (eIC) process to highlight some of these complexities and explore how IRBs and study teams can navigate them. Here, we identify the key regulations that should be considered when developing and using an eIC process as well as some of the operational considerations eIC presents related to IRB review and how they can be addressed.

Retaining Participants in Longitudinal Studies of Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Retention of study participants is essential to advancing Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and developing therapeutic interventions. However, recent multi-year AD studies have lost 10% to 54% of participants. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed a random sample of 443 participants (Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR]≤1) at four Alzheimer Disease Research Centers to elucidate perceived facilitators and barriers to continued participation in longitudinal AD research. METHODS: Reasons for participation were characterized with factor analysis. Effects of perceived fulfillment of one's own goals and complaints on attendance and likelihood of dropout were estimated with logistic regression models. Open-ended responses suggesting study improvements were analyzed with a Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic model. RESULTS: Factor analyses revealed two categories, personal benefit and altruism, as drivers of continued participation. Participants with cognitive impairment (CDR > 0) emphasized personal benefits more than societal benefits. Participants with higher trust in medical researchers were more likely to emphasize broader social benefits. A minority endorsed any complaints. Higher perceived fulfillment of one's own goals and fewer complaints were related to higher attendance and lower likelihood of dropout. Facilitators included access to medical center support and/or future treatment, learning about AD and memory concerns, and enjoying time with staff. Participants' suggestions emphasized more feedback about individual test results and AD research. CONCLUSION: The results confirmed previously identified facilitators and barriers. Two new areas, improved communication about individual test results and greater feedback about AD research, emerged as the primary factors to improve participation.

Informed Consent in Two Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers: Insights From Research Coordinators.

Background: Informed consent (IC) is critical to performing ethical research. Unfortunately, the IC process and supporting IC forms are frequently burdensome and do not necessarily meet the informational needs of participants. The intersecting legal and ethical challenges of obtaining IC from individuals with memory or cognitive deficits further exacerbate existing IC shortcomings. For this reason, study coordinators play a critical role in facilitating the IC process in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. To identify opportunities to improve how IC is obtained in AD research, we examined the IC process from the perspectives of study coordinators at two Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC). Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with 15 study coordinators from two ADRC sites detailing their experience obtaining IC. Interviews were conducted in private, recorded, transcribed, and independently coded using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Key themes were explored as they emerged. Results: Coordinators reported overall satisfaction with the IC process. However, many reported difficulties maintaining participant attention, explaining complex procedures, and addressing medical misinformation. Although the centers use site-specific consent forms, coordinators at both centers stressed that their IC is too long and the supporting IC forms are too complicated. Coordinators indicated modifying the IC process to the perceived needs of individual participants. Adaptations reported include altering the cadence and vocabulary they employ, using supplemental materials, varying the order of IC topics, and limiting the depth of information presented. Conclusion: A qualitative analysis of interviews with study coordinators reveals opportunities to improve how we obtain IC in AD research. These insights will be used to create an electronic informed consent (eConsent) designed to boost engagement, enhance trust, and improve understanding by supporting participants' direct agency in the IC process.