Inclusion of people living with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias who lack a study partner in social research: Ethical considerations from a qualitative evidence synthesis

IF 2.4 3区 社会学 Q2 GERONTOLOGY Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1177/14713012211072501
Kate de Medeiros, L. Girling, N. Berlinger
{"title":"Inclusion of people living with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias who lack a study partner in social research: Ethical considerations from a qualitative evidence synthesis","authors":"Kate de Medeiros, L. Girling, N. Berlinger","doi":"10.1177/14713012211072501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Because use of a study partner (proxy decision-maker) to give informed consent on behalf of someone living with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) is common in nearly all clinical research, people living with ADRD who lack a study partner are regularly excluded from participation. Social research presents different opportunities and risks than clinical research. We argue that guidelines developed for the latter may be unduly restrictive for social research and, further, that the automatic exclusion of people living with ADRD presents separate ethical challenges by failing to support extant decision-making capacity and by contributing to underrepresentation in research. Purpose The study objective was to identify key components related to including cognitively vulnerable participants who lack a study partner in social research. Research design/Study sample We conducted an adaptive qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) and subsequent content analysis on 49 articles addressing capacity and research consent for potentially cognitively compromised individuals, to include people living with ADRD, who lack a study partner. Results We identified four major topic areas: defining competency, capacity, and consent; aspects of informed consent; strategies to assess comprehension of risks associated with social research; and risks versus benefits. Conclusions Based on findings, we suggest new and ethically appropriate ways to determine capacity to consent to social research, make consent processes accessible to a population experiencing cognitive challenges, and consider the risks of excluding a growing population from research that could benefit millions.","PeriodicalId":51413,"journal":{"name":"Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice","volume":"21 1","pages":"1200 - 1218"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia-International Journal of Social Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012211072501","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background Because use of a study partner (proxy decision-maker) to give informed consent on behalf of someone living with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) is common in nearly all clinical research, people living with ADRD who lack a study partner are regularly excluded from participation. Social research presents different opportunities and risks than clinical research. We argue that guidelines developed for the latter may be unduly restrictive for social research and, further, that the automatic exclusion of people living with ADRD presents separate ethical challenges by failing to support extant decision-making capacity and by contributing to underrepresentation in research. Purpose The study objective was to identify key components related to including cognitively vulnerable participants who lack a study partner in social research. Research design/Study sample We conducted an adaptive qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) and subsequent content analysis on 49 articles addressing capacity and research consent for potentially cognitively compromised individuals, to include people living with ADRD, who lack a study partner. Results We identified four major topic areas: defining competency, capacity, and consent; aspects of informed consent; strategies to assess comprehension of risks associated with social research; and risks versus benefits. Conclusions Based on findings, we suggest new and ethically appropriate ways to determine capacity to consent to social research, make consent processes accessible to a population experiencing cognitive challenges, and consider the risks of excluding a growing population from research that could benefit millions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将缺乏研究伙伴的阿尔茨海默病或相关痴呆患者纳入社会研究:定性证据综合的伦理考虑
背景由于在几乎所有的临床研究中,使用研究伙伴(代理决策者)代表阿尔茨海默病或相关痴呆症(ADRD)患者给予知情同意是很常见的,因此缺乏研究伙伴的ADRD患者经常被排除在参与之外。社会研究提供了与临床研究不同的机会和风险。我们认为,为后者制定的指导方针可能对社会研究有不适当的限制,此外,自动排除ADRD患者会带来单独的伦理挑战,因为他们无法支持现有的决策能力,并导致研究中的代表性不足。目的本研究的目的是确定与将缺乏研究伙伴的认知脆弱参与者纳入社会研究相关的关键组成部分。研究设计/研究样本我们对49篇文章进行了适应性定性证据综合(QES)和随后的内容分析,涉及潜在认知受损个体的能力和研究同意,包括缺乏研究伙伴的ADRD患者。结果我们确定了四个主要的主题领域:定义能力、能力和同意;知情同意的各个方面;评估对社会研究相关风险理解的策略;风险与收益。结论基于研究结果,我们提出了新的、符合伦理的方法来确定同意社会研究的能力,使经历认知挑战的人群能够获得同意过程,并考虑将不断增长的人群排除在可能使数百万人受益的研究之外的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: Dementia acts as a major forum for social research of direct relevance to improving the quality of life and quality of care for people with dementia and their families. For the first time an international research journal is available for academics and practitioners that has as its primary paradigm the lived experience of dementia.
期刊最新文献
Mechanisms in Emotional Information Processing in Individuals with Major Depressive Disorder: An Event-Related Potential Study of an Information Processing Model. Book Reviews: Diary of the Fall Doing relationship-centered dementia care: Learning from each other for better dementia support Book Review: Dementia Caregiving East and West: Issues of Communication Book Review: Book Reviews Williams 2021
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1