Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31297689›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019

Planning Ahead for Dementia Research Participation: Insights from a Survey of Older Australians and Implications for Ethics, Law and Practice.

Nola Ries, Elise Mansfield, Rob Sanson-Fisher

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nola RiesFaculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. nola.ries@uts.edu.au.
Elise MansfieldFaculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Rob Sanson-FisherFaculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia.
University of Newcastle Australia · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1095078
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People with dementia have commonly been excluded from research. The adverse impacts of this exclusion are now being recognized and research literature, position statements, and ethics guidelines increasingly call for inclusion of people with dementia in research. However, few published studies investigate the views of potential participants on taking part in research should they experience dementia-related cognitive impairment. This cross-sectional survey examined the views of people aged sixty and older (n=174) attending hospital outpatient clinics about clinical research participation if they had dementia and impaired decision-making ability. Over 90 percent of respondents were agreeable to participating in a wide range of research activities, such as cognitive testing, physical measurements, imaging procedures, and blood draws. For drug studies, however, agreement dropped to 60 percent. Altruism was a strong motivator for research participation. In regard to who should be involved in decisions about their participation in research during periods of incapacity, respondents mostly preferred the person they appoint as their substitute decision-maker for healthcare matters (88%) or a doctor or health professional on the research team (78%). Over three-quarters (79%) expressed interest in making an advance research directive. The study findings are discussed in relation to law reforms in Australia that aim to strengthen respect and inclusion for people with impaired decision-making capacity, especially by providing frameworks for advance planning for research participation.

Indexed as

Advance DirectivesDecision MakingAgedAustraliaCognitive DysfunctionCross-Sectional StudiesDementiaEthics, ResearchFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMental CompetencyMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationResearch SubjectsAdvance research directiveCapacity to consentCognitive impairmentDementiaEthicsLawResearch

Identifiers

PMID31297689
OpenAlexW2956973466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.