Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37247413›Full record

ArticleNursing ethics

A human rights-based framework for qualitative dementia research.

Alicia Diaz-Gil, Joanne Brooke, Olga Kozlowska, Debra Jackson, Jane Appleton, Sarah Pendlebury

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing ethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

6 authors.

Alicia Diaz-GilOxford Brookes University, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7439-619X
Joanne BrookeFaculty of Health Education and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, UK.
Olga KozlowskaFaculty of Health and Life Science, Oxford Brookes University, UK.
Debra JacksonSusan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sydney, Australia.
Jane AppletonFaculty of Health and Life Science, Oxford Brookes University, UK.
Sarah PendleburyNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesPeople living with dementia have historically been excluded from qualitative research and their voices ignored due to the perception that a person with dementia is not able to express their opinions, preferences and feelings. Research institutions and organizations have contributed by adopting a paternalistic posture of overprotection. Furthermore, traditional research methods have proven to be exclusionary towards this group. The objective of this paper is to address the issue of inclusion of people with dementia in research and provide an evidence-based framework for dementia researchers based on the five principles of human rights: Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination and equality, Empowerment and Legality (PANEL).

designThis paper adapts the PANEL principles to the research context, and uses evidence from the literature to create a framework for qualitative research in people with dementia. This new framework aims to guide dementia researchers in designing studies around the needs of people with dementia, to improve involvement and participation, facilitate research development and maximize research outcomes.

resultsA checklist is presented with questions related to the five PANEL principles. These questions cover ethical, methodological and legal issues that researchers may need to consider while developing qualitative research for people with dementia.

conclusionsThe proposed checklist offers a series of questions and considerations to facilitate the development of qualitative research in patients with dementia. It is inspired by current human rights work of recognized dementia researchers and organizations who have been directly involved in policy development. Future studies need to explore its utility in improving participation, facilitating ethics approvals and ensuring that outcomes are relevant to people with dementia.

Indexed as

DementiaHuman RightsHumansQualitative ResearchResearch DesigncapacityconsentDementia researchhuman rightsparticipationresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID37247413
PMCPMC10710007

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.