Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39726912›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024

"Challenging behavior" in dementia care: ethical complications of a well-intentioned concept.

Jonas Barth

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. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

1 author.

Jonas BarthFaculty for Education and Social Sciences, Institute for Social Sciences, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uncommon behaviours such as aggression, apathy or restlessness are described as challenging behaviours in dementia care. On the one hand, this concept describes a practical problem faced by care staff and, at the same time, defines normatively how care staff should deal with this problem. A frequent benchmark here is the dignity of the person in need of care, which caregivers should also respect in the case of challenging behaviour. However, little is known about the normative standards that are effective in practice in everyday care when dealing with challenging behaviour. Researching these can provide information on which standards are actually applied and encourage reflection on which standards should be applied. In view of the fact that challenging behaviour can also be associated with aggression and/or violence in particular, an ethically significant question arises as to what effects the practical handling of such behaviour has on the extent of the willingness to use violence. The aim of this article is therefore to present empirical findings from an ethnographic study that focuses on the interpretation and practical handling of aggressive behaviour of care recipients by the nursing staff. In essence, it will be shown that a professional approach to challenging behaviour helps to prevent people with dementia in need of care from committing violent acts. If this finding is analysed in terms of its ethical implications, the conclusion suggests itself that the exclusion of the possibility of using violence is to be welcomed, since the exercise of violence makes respect for the dignity of another person, if not impossible, at least more difficult. However, it is questionable whether, under such conditions, the renunciation of violence can still be attributed the freedom required to qualify it as ethically good behaviour.

Indexed as

challenging behaviourdementiaelderly careethical issuesethnographysociology of careviolence

Identifiers

PMID39726912
PMCPMC11669657

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.