{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,31]],"date-time":"2026-05-31T19:01:13Z","timestamp":1780254073624,"version":"3.54.0"},"reference-count":72,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]],"date-time":"2026-04-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1777248000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]],"date-time":"2026-04-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1777248000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"funder":[{"name":"NHS England"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Palliat Med"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Palliative care research must be inclusive of those with impairments in decision-making to provide a representative evidence base for care and treatment. When capacity to consent to research is impaired, proxies may be asked to support decision-making. However, little is known about how proxies navigate this role or what supports their involvement.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Aim:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To identify, describe, and synthesise empirical evidence on the use of proxies to support the involvement of adults with impaired mental capacity in palliative care research.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Design:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A scoping review conducted and reported following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Data were charted and are reported descriptively, organised by themes.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Data sources:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO Academic Search Ultimate, Scopus, Westlaw, HeinOnline, APA PsycINFO, and Social Sciences Citation Index for studies published between 2007 and 2025.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Proxy decision-making was found to be context-dependent, shaped by consent models and varying across jurisdictions. Proxies\u2019 confidence and willingness to act were influenced by their understanding of consent requirements, perceived research value and power dynamics. Significant international variation exists in the legal and ethical frameworks that guide proxy involvement.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Proxy decision-making in research is complex, involving legal, ethical, emotional, relational, and contextual factors. Demands on proxies are particularly pertinent in a palliative care context, where substituted decision making must be balanced alongside personal values and emotional burden. To promote inclusion, accessible, jurisdiction-specific guidance, training for proxies and researchers, and ongoing support mechanisms are essential. In a palliative care context, advance research planning might support proxy decision-making.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1177\/02692163261431100","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]],"date-time":"2026-04-27T11:38:47Z","timestamp":1777289927000},"page":"793-809","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Proxy decision-making about participation in palliative care research: A scoping review"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"40","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1740-3562","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Caroline","family":"Barry","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Palliative Medicine, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK"},{"name":"Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Miriam","family":"Craske","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Palliative Medicine, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Matthew","family":"Hawkes","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Kettering, England, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Guy","family":"Peryer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK"},{"name":"St Christopher\u2019s Hospice, London, UK"},{"name":"Cicely Saunders Institute, King\u2019s College, London"},{"name":"Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, London"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Karen","family":"Bunning","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rob","family":"Heywood","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-9313-3894","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Martyn","family":"Patel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Palliative Medicine, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK"},{"name":"Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Victoria","family":"Shepherd","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Cardiff University, Wales, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_2_2_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Silveira MJ Kim SY Langa KM. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(13): 1211\u20131218. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1056\/NEJMsa0907901","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMsa0907901"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Davies A Waghorn M Roberts M et al. Clinically assisted hydration in patients in the last days of life (\u2018CHELsea II\u2019 trial): a cluster randomised trial. BMJ Open 2022; 12(11): e068846. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2022-068846","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2022-068846"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Evans CJ Yorganci E Lewis P et al. Processes of consent in research for adults with impaired mental capacity nearing the end of life: systematic review and transparent expert consultation (MORECare_Capacity statement). BMC Med 2020; 18(1): 221. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12916-020-01654-2","DOI":"10.1186\/s12916-020-01654-2"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Clark T Lewko A Calestani M. The circular paradox of including people with severe brain injuries and reduced decisional capacity in research: a feasibility study exploring randomized research consent-based recruitment biases and the resultant health inequities. Physiother Theory Pract 2024; 40(10): 2196\u20132212. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/09593985.2023.2236194","DOI":"10.1080\/09593985.2023.2236194"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Stone K Hotopf M Koffman J et al. MORECARE capacity: mental capacity and processes of consent for research on end-of-life care. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2013; 3(1): 128.1\u201312128. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjspcare-2013-000453b.11","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjspcare-2013-000453b.11"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_7_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"White M Connolly M Davies A. Bereaved informal carers\u2019 experience of an interventional clinical research project at the end-of-life: a qualitative interview study. BMC Palliat Care 2025; 24(1): 275. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12904-025-01872-6","DOI":"10.1186\/s12904-025-01872-6"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Veerus P Lexchin J Hemminki E. Legislative regulation and ethical governance of medical research in different European union countries. J Med Ethics 2014; 40(6): 409\u2013413. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/medethics-2012-101282","DOI":"10.1136\/medethics-2012-101282"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"DeMartino ES Dudzinski DM Doyle CK et al. Who decides when a patient can\u2019t? Statutes on alternate decision makers. N Engl J Med 2017; 376(15): 1478\u20131482. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1056\/NEJMms1611497","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMms1611497"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_10_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Griffith R Sheehan M et al. Healthcare professionals\u2019 understanding of the legislation governing research involving adults lacking mental capacity in England and Wales: a national survey. J Med Ethics 2018; 44(9): 632\u2013637. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/medethics-2017-104722","DOI":"10.1136\/medethics-2017-104722"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_11_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V. Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: the impact of research regulation on \u201cevidence biased\u201d medicine. BMC Med Ethics 2016; 17(1): 55. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12910-016-0138-9","DOI":"10.1186\/s12910-016-0138-9"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_12_2","unstructured":"United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2006."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_13_2","unstructured":"World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki \u2013 ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2013. https:\/\/www.wma.net\/policies-post\/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects\/ (accessed 16 June 2025)."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_14_2","unstructured":"Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 2016. https:\/\/cioms.ch\/publications\/product\/international-ethical-guidelines-for-health-related-research-involving-humans\/ (accessed 16 June 2025)"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Hood K Wood F. Unpacking the \u2018black box of horrendousness\u2019: a qualitative exploration of the barriers and facilitators to conducting trials involving adults lacking capacity to consent. Trials 2022; 23(1): 471. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13063-022-06422-6","DOI":"10.1186\/s13063-022-06422-6"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Peters MDJ Godfrey C McInerney P et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth 2022; 20(4): 953\u2013968. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.11124\/JBIES-21-00242","DOI":"10.11124\/JBIES-21-00242"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Munn Z Peters MDJ Stern C et al. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18(1): 143. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-018-0611-x","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-018-0611-x"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Peters MD Godfrey C McInerney P et al. JBI Manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. 2024; https:\/\/doi.org\/10.46658\/JBIMES-24-09.","DOI":"10.46658\/JBIMES-24-09"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16(1): 15. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12874-016-0116-4","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-016-0116-4"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169(7): 467\u2013473. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.7326\/M18-0850","DOI":"10.7326\/M18-0850"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021; 10(1): 89. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13643-021-01626-4","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-021-01626-4"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Stocking CB Hougham GW Danner DD et al. Empirical assessment of a research advance directive for persons with dementia and their proxies. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55(10): 1609\u20131612. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1532-5415.2007.01318.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1532-5415.2007.01318.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1212\/WNL.0b013e3181a55fbe"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"De Vries R Stanczyk A Wall IF et al. Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: a case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70(12): 1896\u20131903. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.socscimed.2010.02.031","DOI":"10.1016\/j.socscimed.2010.02.031"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_25_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"De Vries R Stanczyk AE Ryan KA et al. A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011; 6(3): 3\u201317. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1525\/jer.2011.6.3.3","DOI":"10.1525\/jer.2011.6.3.3"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_26_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"De Vries R Ryan KA Stanczyk A et al. Public\u2019s approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: cautious pragmatism. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr 2013; 21(4): 364\u2013372. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jagp.2012.11.010","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jagp.2012.11.010"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_27_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Black BS Wechsler M Fogarty L. Decision making for participation in dementia research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr 2013; 21(4): 355\u2013363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jagp.2012.11.009","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jagp.2012.11.009"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_28_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kauffman KS Dosreis S Ross M et al. Engaging hard-to-reach patients in patient-centered outcomes research. J Comp Eff Res 2013; 2(3): 313\u2013324. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2217\/cer.13.11","DOI":"10.2217\/cer.13.11"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_29_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Overton E Appelbaum PS Fisher SR et al. Alternative decision-makers\u2019 perspectives on assent and dissent for dementia research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatr 2013; 21(4): 346\u2013354. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jagp.2013.01.027","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jagp.2013.01.027"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_30_2","volume-title":"\u201cA Feeling That You\u2019re Helping\u201d: proxy decision making for Alzheimer\u2019s research","author":"Dunn LB","year":"2011","unstructured":"Dunn LB, Hoop JG, Misra S, et al. \u201cA Feeling That You\u2019re Helping\u201d: proxy decision making for Alzheimer\u2019s research. Narrat Inq Bioeth 2011."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_31_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Clarridge BR Bolcic-Jankovic D LeBlanc J et al. Does difficulty functioning in the surrogate role equate to vulnerability in critical illness research? Use of path analysis to examine the relationship between difficulty providing substituted judgment and receptivity to critical illness research participation. J Crit Care 2015; 30(6): 1310\u20131316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jcrc.2015.07.016","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrc.2015.07.016"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_32_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shelton AK Freeman BD Fish AF et al. A computer-based education intervention to enhance surrogates\u2019 informed consent for genomics research. Am J Crit Care 2015; 24(2): 148\u2013155. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4037\/ajcc2015983","DOI":"10.4037\/ajcc2015983"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_33_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sole ML Middleton A Deaton L et al. Enrollment challenges in critical care nursing research. Am J Crit Care 2017; 26(5): 395\u2013400. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4037\/ajcc2017511","DOI":"10.4037\/ajcc2017511"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_34_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Terry MA Freedberg DE Morris MC. An alternative consent process for minimal risk research in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2017; 45(9): 1450\u20131456. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/CCM.0000000000002539","DOI":"10.1097\/CCM.0000000000002539"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_35_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Corneli A Perry B Collyar D et al. Assessment of the perceived acceptability of an early enrollment strategy using advance consent in health care\u2013associated pneumonia. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1(8): e185816. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2018.5816","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2018.5816"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_36_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Scicluna VM Goldkind SF Mitchell AR et al. Determinants of patient and surrogate experiences with acute care research consent: a key informant interview study. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8(22): e012599. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1161\/JAHA.119.012599","DOI":"10.1161\/JAHA.119.012599"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_37_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Campwala I Guyette FX Brown JB et al. Patient and surrogate attitudes via an interviewer-administered survey on exception from informed consent enrollment in the prehospital air medical plasma (PAMPer) trial. BMC Emerg Med 2020; 20(1): 76. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12873-020-00371-6","DOI":"10.1186\/s12873-020-00371-6"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_38_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Krutsinger DC Maloney SI Courtright KR et al. Barriers and facilitators of surrogates providing consent for critically ill patients in clinical trials: a qualitative study. Chest 2024; 166(2): 304\u2013310. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chest.2024.02.027","DOI":"10.1016\/j.chest.2024.02.027"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_39_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Dixon-Woods M Angell EL. Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements? J Med Ethics 2009; 35(6): 377\u2013381. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/jme.2008.027094","DOI":"10.1136\/jme.2008.027094"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_40_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Hood K Gillies K et al. Development of a measure to assess the quality of proxy decisions about research participation on behalf of adults lacking capacity to consent: the combined scale for proxy informed consent decisions (CONCORD scale). Trials 2022; 23(1): 843. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13063-022-06787-8","DOI":"10.1186\/s13063-022-06787-8"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_41_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Hood K Sheehan M et al. It\u2019s a tough decision\u2019: a qualitative study of proxy decision-making for research involving adults who lack capacity to consent in UK. Age Ageing 2019; 48(6): 903\u2013909. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/ageing\/afz115","DOI":"10.1093\/ageing\/afz115"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_42_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Hood K Wood F. \u2018It\u2019s not making a decision it\u2019s prompting the discussions\u2019: a qualitative study exploring stakeholders\u2019 views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE). BMC Med Ethics 2024; 25(1): 80. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12910-024-01081-5","DOI":"10.1186\/s12910-024-01081-5"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_43_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Sheehan M Hood K et al. Constructing authentic decisions: proxy decision making for research involving adults who lack capacity to consent. J Med Ethics 2020; 47(12): E42. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/medethics-2019-106042","DOI":"10.1136\/medethics-2019-106042"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_44_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Wood F Griffith R et al. Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: a content analysis of participant information sheets for consultees and legal representatives in England and Wales. Trials 2019; 20(1): 233. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13063-019-3340-5","DOI":"10.1186\/s13063-019-3340-5"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_45_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Shepherd V Wood F Robling M et al. Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to enhance trial participation decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity to consent: a mixed methods study (COnSiDER study). Trials 2021; 22(1): 935. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13063-021-05883-5","DOI":"10.1186\/s13063-021-05883-5"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_46_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Stanley S Nwosu AC. Case report: the use of advanced consent methodology and healthcare professional consultee to facilitate research participation in dying patients. AMRC Open Res 2021; 3: 3. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/amrcopenres.12961.1","DOI":"10.12688\/amrcopenres.12961.1"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_47_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Towers AM Smith N Palmer S et al. The acceptability and feasibility of using the adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16(1): 523. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12913-016-1763-1","DOI":"10.1186\/s12913-016-1763-1"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_48_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Barrett KA Ferguson ND Athaide V et al. Surrogate decision makers\u2019 attitudes towards research decision making for critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38(10): 1616\u20131623. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00134-012-2625-x","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-012-2625-x"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_49_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Burns KEA Prats CJ Maione M et al. The experience of surrogate decision makers on being approached for consent for patient participation in research: a multicenter study. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14(2): 238\u2013245. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1513\/AnnalsATS.201606-425OC","DOI":"10.1513\/AnnalsATS.201606-425OC"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_50_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Burns KEA Rizvi L Smith OM et al. Is there a role for physician involvement in introducing research to surrogate decision makers in the intensive care unit? (the approach trial: a pilot mixed methods study). Intensive Care Med 2015; 41(1): 58\u201367. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00134-014-3558-3","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-014-3558-3"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_51_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mehta S Quittnat Pelletier F Brown M et al. Why substitute decision makers provide or decline consent for ICU research studies: a questionnaire study. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38(1): 47\u201354. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00134-011-2411-1","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-011-2411-1"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_52_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bogaerts JMK Warmerdam LA Achterberg WP et al. Proxy decision-making for clinical research in nursing home residents with dementia: a qualitative analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2023; 24(4): 541\u2013547.e2. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jamda.2023.02.017","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jamda.2023.02.017"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_53_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Noori Z Vianen NJ Van Lieshout EMM et al. Deferred consent in emergency trauma research: a qualitative study assessing the healthcare professional\u2019s opinions. Injury 2024; 55(11): 111759. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.injury.2024.111759","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2024.111759"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_54_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"van den Bos N van den Berg SA Caupain CM et al. Patient and proxies\u2019 attitudes towards deferred consent in randomised trials of acute treatment for stroke: a qualitative survey. Eur Stroke J 2021; 6(4): 395\u2013402. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/23969873211057421","DOI":"10.1177\/23969873211057421"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_55_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ho P Downs J Bulsara C et al. Addressing challenges in gaining informed consent for a research study investigating falls in people with intellectual disability. Br J Learn Disabil 2018; 46(2): 92\u2013100. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/bld.12217","DOI":"10.1111\/bld.12217"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_56_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ries N Mansfield E. Advance research directives: dementia researchers\u2019 views on a prototype directive and implementation strategies. Ethics Hum Res 2021; 43(3): 10\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/eahr.500091","DOI":"10.1002\/eahr.500091"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_57_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yoon JH. Reconsidering the inclusive research approach: proxy Intervention Interview as an opportunity for the participation of people with cognitive disability and communication challenges. Int J Qual Methods 2023; 22. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/16094069231191686","DOI":"10.1177\/16094069231191686"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_58_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"George DE Dholakia S Tharyan P. Assessing decisional capacity for research participation in psychiatric patients and their relatives. Indian J Med Ethics 2018; 3(2): 125\u2013133. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.20529\/IJME.2017.075","DOI":"10.20529\/IJME.2017.075"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_59_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Misra UK Goyal G Kohat AK et al. Attitude of epilepsy patients and their attendants for participating in research on status epilepticus. Neurol Sci 2014; 35(12): 2001\u20132003. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10072-014-1933-z","DOI":"10.1007\/s10072-014-1933-z"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_60_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Huttner A von Dach E Prendki V et al. Patient and proxy recall after providing written or oral informed consent to participate in an interventional trial. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5(5): e2214052. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2022.14052","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2022.14052"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_61_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Labruy\u00e8re M Meunier-Beillard N Ecarnot F et al. Family perceptions of clinical research and the informed consent process in the ICU. J Crit Care 2022; 68: 141\u2013143. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jcrc.2020.09.032","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jcrc.2020.09.032"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_62_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Brune C Stentzel U Hoffmann W et al. Attitudes of legal guardians and legally supervised persons with and without previous research experience towards participation in research projects: a quantitative cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2021; 16(9): e0256689. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pone.0256689","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0256689"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_63_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Undurraga J Negussie H Wendler D. Consent decisional capacity and guardianship in mental health research. Wellcome Open Res 2022; 7: 183. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/wellcomeopenres.18003.2","DOI":"10.12688\/wellcomeopenres.18003.1"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_64_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Barrett KA Scales DC. Considering the vulnerabilities of surrogate decision-makers when obtaining consent for critical care research. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38(1): 4\u20136. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00134-011-2430-y","DOI":"10.1007\/s00134-011-2430-y"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_65_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Jung SK Jeong YH Lee WJ et al. A survey study of institutional review board thought processes in the United States and South Korea. West J Emerg Med 2012; 13(4): 335\u2013341. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5811\/westjem.2011.6.6756","DOI":"10.5811\/westjem.2011.6.6756"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_66_2","volume-title":"Making decisions the independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) service the mental capacity act","author":"Office of the Public Guardian","year":"2007","unstructured":"Office of the Public Guardian. Making decisions the independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA) service the mental capacity act. 2nd ed. Crown, 2007.","edition":"2"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_67_2","volume-title":"Mental Capacity Act","author":"Department of Health","year":"2005","unstructured":"Department of Health. Mental Capacity Act. The Stationary Office, 2005."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_68_2","volume-title":"Decision-making and mental capacity","author":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence","year":"2018","unstructured":"National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Decision-making and mental capacity. NICE guideline [NG108]. London: NICE; 2018 Oct."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_69_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sheridan R Martin-Kerry J Hudson J et al. Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials 2020; 21(1): 259. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13063-020-4197-3","DOI":"10.1186\/s13063-020-4197-3"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_70_2","unstructured":"Department of Health and Social Care Ministry of Justice Department for Education et al. Changes to the MCA code of practice and implementation of the LPS: consultation document. 2022."},{"key":"e_1_3_2_71_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ingle MP Check D Slack DH et al. Use of theoretical frameworks in the development and testing of palliative care interventions. J Pain Symptom Manag 2022; 63(3): e271\u2013e280. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jpainsymman.2021.10.011","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jpainsymman.2021.10.011"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_72_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Pfadenhauer LM Gerhardus A Mozygemba K et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci 2017; 12(1): 21. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s13012-017-0552-5","DOI":"10.1186\/s13012-017-0552-5"},{"key":"e_1_3_2_73_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Arteaga I Llewellyn H. Cultivating ethnographic sensibilities in ethnographies of dying people. Ethos 2022; 50(3): 353\u2013371. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/etho.12357","DOI":"10.1111\/etho.12357"}],"container-title":["Palliative Medicine"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/02692163261431100","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1177\/02692163261431100","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/02692163261431100","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,31]],"date-time":"2026-05-31T18:48:53Z","timestamp":1780253333000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/02692163261431100"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]]},"references-count":72,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2026,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1177\/02692163261431100"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/02692163261431100","relation":{},"ISSN":["0269-2163","1477-030X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0269-2163","type":"print"},{"value":"1477-030X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,27]]}}}