Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38983620›Full record

ReviewBrain communications2024

Considerations for legal, ethical, and effective practice in dementia research.

Michael C B David, Martina Del Giovane, Danielle Wilson, Trevor Truman, Jonathan D Huntley, Mehrunisha Suleman, Alexander Ruck Keene, Michael Parker, David J Sharp, Paresh A Malhotra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

10 authors.

Michael C B DavidUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8724-2840
Martina Del GiovaneUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Danielle WilsonUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Trevor TrumanUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Jonathan D HuntleyDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London W1T 7BN, UK.
Mehrunisha SulemanEthox, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Alexander Ruck KeeneBarrister, London WC2A 1DD, UK.
Michael ParkerEthox, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
David J SharpUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.
Paresh A MalhotraUK Dementia Research Institute Care Research and Technology Centre, Imperial College London, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1897-0780

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dementia represents a potentially overwhelming health burden, both for the UK and worldwide. Addressing this fast-growing issue is a key priority for the government, health service and the public. Advances in care including the development of efficacious disease-modifying, and eventually curative, treatments can only be achieved through effective dementia research. Specifically, research directly involving participants with dementia is essential to further understanding. However, working with cognitively impaired participants with and without capacity to consent to research presents unique ethical and legal challenges. For clinicians and scientists on the frontline of dementia research, scenarios frequently arise that pose such challenges. A lack of guidance for a consistent approach in navigating these scenarios limits researchers' ability to proceed with confidence. This represents a threat to the rights and wishes of research participants as well as the field at large, as it may lead to studies being unnecessarily terminated or, worse, poor practice. In this article, we take a multiprofessional approach, informed by carer input, to these issues. We review the relevant ethical and legal literature relating to the conduct of non-interventional research studies in patients with dementia. This includes a thorough recap of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), which provides a legal framework in England and Wales for conducting research with participants who lack capacity to consent. We also discuss the important, but sometimes incomplete, role of research ethics committees in guiding researchers. We then present and discuss a series of case vignettes designed to highlight areas of incomplete coverage by existing governance. These vignettes describe theoretical scenarios informed by our own real-word experiences of encountering ethical issues when conducting dementia research. They include scenarios in which participants demonstrate varying degrees of understanding of the research they are involved in and ability to communicate their wishes and feelings. Building on these vignettes, we then provide a checklist for researchers to work through when presented with similar scenarios. This checklist covers the key ethical, legal and practical considerations that we have argued for. Taken together, this article can act as a guide, previously lacking in the literature, for colleagues in the field to enable much needed ethical, legal and effective research.

Indexed as

academiacapacityconsentethicslaw

Identifiers

PMID38983620
PMCPMC11231934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.