Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42295547›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2026

Advance Research Directives and Supported Consent in Dementia Research.

Nevena Divac, Nikola Samardžić

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Nevena DivacDepartment of Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 1, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia. nevena.divac@med.bg.ac.rs.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5393-7521
Nikola SamardžićDepartment of History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Čika Ljubina 18-20, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5957-1041

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology COST Action Ethics in Dementia (EDEM) CA21137European Cooperation in Science and Technology supported by COST (European Cooperation in ScienceEuropean Cooperation in Science and Technology Technology).
6 · The paper itself

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

Advance directivesAutonomyClinical trialsDementiaHybrid modelPrecedent autonomyProxy consentSupported consent

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.