↓ Skip to main content

Including People with Dementia in Research: An Analysis of Australian Ethical and Legal Rules and Recommendations for Reform

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Including People with Dementia in Research: An Analysis of Australian Ethical and Legal Rules and Recommendations for Reform
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11673-017-9794-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nola M. Ries, Katie A. Thompson, Michael Lowe

Abstract

Research is crucial to advancing knowledge about dementia, yet the burden of the disease currently outpaces research activity. Research often excludes people with dementia and other cognitive impairments because researchers and ethics committees are concerned about issues related to capacity, consent, and substitute decision-making. In Australia, participation in research by people with cognitive impairment is governed by a national ethics statement and a patchwork of state and territorial laws that have widely varying rules. We contend that this legislative variation precludes a consistent approach to research governance and participation and hinders research that seeks to include people with impaired capacity. In this paper, we present key ethical principles, provide a comprehensive review of applicable legal rules in Australian states and territories, and highlight significant differences and ambiguities. Our analysis includes recommendations for reform to improve clarity and consistency in the law and reduce barriers that may exclude persons with dementia from participating in ethically approved research. Our recommendations seek to advance the national decision-making principles recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which emphasize the rights of all adults to make their own decisions and for those with impaired capacity to have access to appropriate supports to help them make decisions that affect their lives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Professor 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Psychology 4 8%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 21 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,466,074
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#437
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,984
of 316,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.