Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35148655›Full record

ArticleDementia (London, England)2022

'Do I have the capacity to make capacity judgements?' Researcher reflections from a person-centred dementia support study.

Sarah Griffiths, Alex Gude, Leanne Greene, Lauren Weston, Caroline L Sutcliffe, Hannah Wheat, Tomasina M Oh, Richard Byng

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dementia (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah GriffithsFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-3163
Alex GudeFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Leanne GreeneFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5383-4362
Lauren WestonFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Caroline L SutcliffeSocial Care and Society, School of Health Sciences, 5292University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4626-7750
Hannah WheatFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Tomasina M OhFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Richard ByngFaculty of Health, Community and Primary Care Research Group, Plymouth Institute of Health and Care Research, 6633University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeAdults lacking capacity are under-represented in research; therefore, the evidence-base surrounding their support needs is inferior compared to other populations. Involving this group in research is fraught with challenges, including researcher uncertainties about how to carry out capacity judgements. Whilst ethical guidelines and principles provide overarching guidance, there is a lack of detailed guidance and evidence-based training, incorporating practical 'on the ground' strategies and advice on communication practices. Experiences and reflections on research procedures used to gauge and address capacity are under reported, resulting in a lack of shared knowledge within the field.

designTo help address this, we engaged in researcher (co)meta-reflection on the informed capacity judgement procedure for initial consent, within our current, person-centred dementia intervention feasibility study. Our objective was to identify areas to improve our approach, but to also put forward suggestions for wider change within ethical research practice.

resultsFindings reveal challenges and facilitators relating to six areas: 'Conducting time sensitive research whilst remaining person-centred and building relationships'; 'Information sharing and supporting communication'; 'Applying the process flexibly'; 'The role of the carer and the consultee process'; 'Judging assent and dissent' and 'Researcher related factors'. We questioned our 'capacity to make capacity judgements' in terms of both our skills and research time constraints.

conclusionsBased on our experiences, we argue for greater open discussion between researchers, Patient and Public Involvement contributors and Research Ethics Committees at initial project planning stages. We recommend training and guidance focuses on building researcher skills in applying a standard process flexibly, emphasising naturalistic, conversational approaches to capacity judgement. A crucial consideration for funders is how this time-intensive and sensitive work should be factored into bid application templates and funding grants. Learnings from this article have potential to inform evidence-based guidance and training for researchers, consultees, funders, reviewers and ethics committees.

Indexed as

DementiaAdultCommunicationHumansInformation Disseminationcapacity judgementDementiareflection on research practiceresearch participationresearch practice recommendations

Identifiers

PMID35148655
PMCPMC9003753
OpenAlexW4211145834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.