Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39371913›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

Perspectives on advance research directives from individuals with mild cognitive impairment and family members: a qualitative interview study.

Astrid Gieselmann, Jakov Gather, Marina Schmidt, Mishal Qubad, Jochen Vollmann, Matthé Scholten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Astrid GieselmannRuhr University Bochum, Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Bochum, Germany.
Jakov GatherRuhr University Bochum, Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Bochum, Germany.
Marina SchmidtRuhr University Bochum, Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Bochum, Germany.
Mishal QubadGoethe University Frankfurt/Main, Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Frankurt, Germany.
Jochen VollmannRuhr University Bochum, Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Bochum, Germany.
Matthé ScholtenRuhr University Bochum, Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Advance research directives (ARDs) provide a promising way to involve individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in research decisions before they lose the capacity to consent. At the same time, the views of people with MCI on ARDs are underexplored. This study assesses the perceptions of people with MCI and family members on the benefits and challenges associated with ARDs. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of individuals with MCI and family members of individuals with MCI on ARDs. We focus specifically on willingness to participate in nontherapeutic research, understanding of ARDs and the ethical considerations involved. Methods: Thirteen open-ended, face-to-face interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format. Seven interviews were conducted with individuals with MCI, and six with family members of individuals with MCI. The narratives were transcribed verbatim and qualitative content analysis was carried out. Results: Research participation and ARDs were viewed positively, largely based on altruistic motives and the desire to contribute to society. The participants recognized the potential advantages of ARDs in reducing the decision-making burden on family members and maintaining personal autonomy. They also highlighted challenges in comprehending ARDs and navigating the complexities surrounding potential conflicts between current preferences versus preferences described in an ARD. Conclusions: ARDs were predominantly seen as valuable instruments that enable individuals with MCI to participate in research. This study provides insights into the reasons why affected individuals are interested in drafting ARDs. These insights can guide the development of supportive interventions that are tailored to assist individuals with MCI and their families in navigating ARD processes.

Indexed as

altruismdementiamental capacityqualitative interviewsresearch ethicssubstitute decision makingvulnerability

Identifiers

PMID39371913
PMCPMC11450480

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.