Public and professionals’ perceptions and experiences of advance planning for research: a scoping review
This scoping review of 33 publications identifies key implementation barriers, conceptual uncertainties, and the need for tailored, staged strategies to bridge the gap between legislation and practice in advance research planning for adults who may lose decision-making capacity.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine you are building a time capsule for your future self, but instead of burying it in the backyard, you are burying it inside your own mind. This is the world of Advance Care Planning, a well-known practice where people write down what kind of medical treatment they want (or don't want) if they ever get too sick to speak for themselves. It's like leaving a map for your family to follow when you can't navigate the storm. But there is a second, slightly more mysterious map that scientists are trying to draw: the Advance Research Plan. This isn't about saving your life; it's about saving knowledge. It asks a big question: "If I lose my ability to understand or say 'yes' in the future, do I still want to be part of a scientific study that might help others?"
For decades, scientists have been trying to include people who can't give permission (like those with advanced dementia) in important studies. Usually, a family member steps in to say "yes" or "no," but sometimes that family member guesses wrong about what the person would have wanted. To fix this, researchers are exploring Advance Research Directives (ARDs) and Advance Consent. Think of an ARD as a "pre-ordered meal" for your future self: you pick the menu now, while you are still hungry and clear-headed, so that later, when you can't order, the kitchen knows exactly what to serve. But here's the twist: just because you wrote the order doesn't mean the kitchen (the scientists and ethics committees) knows how to cook it, or even if they are allowed to serve it.
This paper is a massive "scouting mission" led by researchers Victoria Shepherd and Nola Ries. They didn't run a new experiment; instead, they acted like detectives, hunting down and reading 33 different studies from around the world (mostly from North America, Australia, the UK, and Europe) published between 2002 and 2024. Their goal was to figure out why, despite thirty years of talking about it and some countries passing laws to allow it, this "pre-ordering" system for research hasn't really caught on yet. They wanted to know: Do regular people want to do it? Do doctors and scientists trust it? And does it actually work?
The investigation revealed that the idea is a bit of a puzzle with missing pieces. First, the concept itself is a bit of a "shape-shifter." Sometimes it means writing a general letter saying "I like science," and other times it means signing up for a specific drug trial for a stroke that hasn't happened yet. Because everyone is using different definitions, it's hard to compare results.
When the researchers asked people if they liked the idea, the answer was a resounding "Yes, but..." Most people, including those with mild memory issues, were very willing to sign up for future research, often because they wanted to help others (a feeling called altruism). They liked the idea of having a say in their future. However, the "but" comes when they think about the details. People were worried about who gets to read their "pre-order." Would a family member respect it? Would a doctor follow it? Many people felt that a piece of paper shouldn't be a "binding contract" that forces them into a study if they look unhappy or confused later on. They wanted their current feelings to matter, even if they had signed a paper years ago.
The paper also found that the "kitchen staff"—the scientists, doctors, and ethics committees—are confused. Many researchers don't know if they are even allowed to use these directives. Some think a directive is just a helpful hint, while others think it should be a strict rule. This confusion creates a bottleneck. Even when people did try to use these plans in real trials (like for stroke patients or those in palliative care), the results were mixed. In some cases, it helped get people into studies faster. In others, the process was so complicated, or the paperwork so vague, that it didn't help at all. One study found that while many people said they would sign a directive, very few actually filled out the form when given the chance, often because they didn't understand what they were signing or felt overwhelmed.
The researchers suggest that the biggest problem isn't that people don't want to participate; it's that we haven't built the right tools yet. We need better "menus" (templates) that are easy to understand, better training for the "chefs" (doctors and researchers) on how to use them, and clearer laws so everyone knows the rules. The paper concludes that we can't just slap a sticker on a hospital wall and call it a system. Instead, we need a step-by-step plan: first, agree on what these plans actually mean; second, fix the laws so they make sense; and only then, try to roll them out in real hospitals. Until we do that, the "time capsule" of research wishes will likely stay buried, waiting for a clearer map to be drawn.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.