↓ Skip to main content

Research involving subjects with Alzheimer’s disease in Italy: the possible role of family members

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Research involving subjects with Alzheimer’s disease in Italy: the possible role of family members
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0009-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corinna Porteri, Carlo Petrini

Abstract

Alzheimer's disease is a very common, progressive and still incurable disease. Future possibilities for its cure lie in the promotion of research that will increase our knowledge of the disorder's causes and lead to the discovery of effective remedies. Such research will necessarily involve individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease. This raises the controversial issue of whether patients with Alzheimer's disease are competent to give their consent for research participation. We discuss the case of subjects with Alzheimer's disease who may have impaired decision-making capacity and who could be involved in research protocols, taking into consideration aspects of the Italian normative framework, which requires a court-appointed legal representative for patients who are not able to give consent and does not recognise the legal value of advance directives. We show that this normative framework risks preventing individuals with Alzheimer's disease from taking part in research and that a new policy that favours research while promoting respect for patients' well-being and rights needs to be implemented. We believe that concerns about the difficulty of obtaining fully valid consent of patients with Alzheimer's disease should not prevent them from participating in clinical trials and benefiting from scientific progress. Therefore, we argue that the requirement for patients to have a legal representative may not be the best solution in all countries and clinical situations, and suggest promoting the role of patients' family members in the decision-making process. In addition, we outline the possible role of advance directives and ethics committees.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 19%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,173,376
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#430
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,663
of 257,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 257,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.