ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
Advance Research Directives and Supported Consent in Dementia Research.
Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Obtaining ethically valid consent for clinical research involving persons with dementia remains a persistent challenge, as cognitive decline disrupts traditional models of informed consent based on participant's capacity to understand the content and freely decide. As a result, individuals are frequently excluded from research or enrolled through proxy consent that may insufficiently reflect their values and autonomous commitments. Recent ethical and policy debates have increasingly promoted advance research directives and supported decision‑making as means of addressing these challenges and enhancing inclusion. This manuscript examines the ethical roles and limitations of advance research directives and supported consent in dementia research. Based on the concept of precedent autonomy, we maintain that advance research directives have distinctive normative importance in the research setting, where participation may involve risks or burdens without direct therapeutic benefit. At the same time, we critically consider supported decision‑making, identifying ethical risks including undue influence, oversimplification of material information, misinterpretation of assent, and the substitution of supporters' preferences for participants' choice. To address these tensions, we propose a hybrid consent model that integrates advance research directives with supported decision‑making, ongoing assessment of assent and dissent, and procedural safeguards. This model implies consent as a continuous ethical process rather than a single event, balancing respect for prior autonomous commitments with sensitivity to present expressions, and well-being. We suggest that such an approach offers a more ethically defensible and practical framework for dementia research, consistent with rights‑based principles and established research ethics standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295547What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.