• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Perspectives on advance research directives from individuals with mild cognitive impairment and family members: a qualitative interview study.对轻度认知障碍患者及其家庭成员关于预先研究指令的看法:一项定性访谈研究。
Front Psychiatry. 2024 Sep 20;15:1419701. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1419701. eCollection 2024.
2
Motivations for people with cognitive impairment to complete an advance research directive - a qualitative interview study.认知障碍患者完成预先研究指示的动机 - 一项定性访谈研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 8;20(1):360. doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02741-7.
3
Advance Research Directives: Dementia Researchers' Views on a Prototype Directive and Implementation Strategies.预先指示研究:痴呆症研究人员对一个原型指示及实施策略的看法。
Ethics Hum Res. 2021 May;43(3):10-25. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500091.
4
Advance Research Directives: Legal and Ethical Issues and Insights from a National Survey of Dementia Researchers in Australia.预先指示研究:澳大利亚全国痴呆症研究人员调查的法律和伦理问题及启示
Med Law Rev. 2020 May 1;28(2):375-400. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa003.
5
Making an Advance Research Directive: An Interview Study with Adults Aged 55 and Older with Interests in Dementia Research.制定预先研究指示:对 55 岁及以上对痴呆症研究感兴趣的成年人的访谈研究。
Ethics Hum Res. 2023 May-Jun;45(3):2-17. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500171.
6
'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE).“这不是做决定,而是促使讨论:一项定性研究,探讨利益相关者对预先研究计划(CONSULT-ADVANCE)的可接受性和可行性的看法。”
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Jul 23;25(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01081-5.
7
'It's definitely not Alzheimer's': Perceived benefits and drawbacks of a mild cognitive impairment diagnosis.“肯定不是老年痴呆症”:轻度认知障碍诊断的好处和坏处。
Br J Health Psychol. 2017 Nov;22(4):786-804. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12255. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
8
Social connections and participation among people with mild cognitive impairment: barriers and recommendations.轻度认知障碍患者的社交联系与参与:障碍与建议
Front Psychiatry. 2023 Jul 5;14:1188887. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1188887. eCollection 2023.
9
10

本文引用的文献

1
'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE).“这不是做决定,而是促使讨论:一项定性研究,探讨利益相关者对预先研究计划(CONSULT-ADVANCE)的可接受性和可行性的看法。”
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Jul 23;25(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01081-5.
2
Making an Advance Research Directive: An Interview Study with Adults Aged 55 and Older with Interests in Dementia Research.制定预先研究指示:对 55 岁及以上对痴呆症研究感兴趣的成年人的访谈研究。
Ethics Hum Res. 2023 May-Jun;45(3):2-17. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500171.
3
Advance planning for research participation: Time to translate this innovation into practice.研究参与的预先规划:是时候将这项创新转化为实践了。
Australas J Ageing. 2023 Mar;42(1):225-233. doi: 10.1111/ajag.13161. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
4
Supported Decision-Making in Persons With Dementia: Development of an Enhanced Consent Procedure for Lumbar Puncture.痴呆症患者的支持性决策:腰椎穿刺强化同意程序的制定
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Nov 16;12:780276. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.780276. eCollection 2021.
5
Advance research directives: avoiding double standards.预先指示研究:避免双重标准。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Oct 9;22(1):137. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00704-5.
6
Advance Research Directives: Dementia Researchers' Views on a Prototype Directive and Implementation Strategies.预先指示研究:痴呆症研究人员对一个原型指示及实施策略的看法。
Ethics Hum Res. 2021 May;43(3):10-25. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500091.
7
Motivations for people with cognitive impairment to complete an advance research directive - a qualitative interview study.认知障碍患者完成预先研究指示的动机 - 一项定性访谈研究。
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Jul 8;20(1):360. doi: 10.1186/s12888-020-02741-7.
8
Advance care planning for people living with dementia: An umbrella review of effectiveness and experiences.痴呆症患者的预先护理计划:有效性和经验的伞式综述。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Jul;107:103576. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103576. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
9
Self-Interested and Altruistic Motivations in Volunteering for Clinical Trials: A More Complex Relationship.志愿参与临床试验的自利动机和利他动机:一种更为复杂的关系。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):443-451. doi: 10.1177/1556264620914463. Epub 2020 May 2.
10
Advance Research Directives: Legal and Ethical Issues and Insights from a National Survey of Dementia Researchers in Australia.预先指示研究:澳大利亚全国痴呆症研究人员调查的法律和伦理问题及启示
Med Law Rev. 2020 May 1;28(2):375-400. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa003.

对轻度认知障碍患者及其家庭成员关于预先研究指令的看法:一项定性访谈研究。

Perspectives on advance research directives from individuals with mild cognitive impairment and family members: a qualitative interview study.

作者信息

Gieselmann Astrid, Gather Jakov, Schmidt Marina, Qubad Mishal, Vollmann Jochen, Scholten Matthé

机构信息

Ruhr University Bochum, Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Bochum, Germany.

Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

Front Psychiatry. 2024 Sep 20;15:1419701. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1419701. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1419701
PMID:39371913
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11450480/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Advance research directives (ARDs) provide a promising way to involve individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in research decisions before they lose the capacity to consent. At the same time, the views of people with MCI on ARDs are underexplored. This study assesses the perceptions of people with MCI and family members on the benefits and challenges associated with ARDs.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the perspectives of individuals with MCI and family members of individuals with MCI on ARDs. We focus specifically on willingness to participate in nontherapeutic research, understanding of ARDs and the ethical considerations involved.

METHODS

Thirteen open-ended, face-to-face interviews were conducted using a semi-structured format. Seven interviews were conducted with individuals with MCI, and six with family members of individuals with MCI. The narratives were transcribed verbatim and qualitative content analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Research participation and ARDs were viewed positively, largely based on altruistic motives and the desire to contribute to society. The participants recognized the potential advantages of ARDs in reducing the decision-making burden on family members and maintaining personal autonomy. They also highlighted challenges in comprehending ARDs and navigating the complexities surrounding potential conflicts between current preferences versus preferences described in an ARD.

CONCLUSIONS

ARDs were predominantly seen as valuable instruments that enable individuals with MCI to participate in research. This study provides insights into the reasons why affected individuals are interested in drafting ARDs. These insights can guide the development of supportive interventions that are tailored to assist individuals with MCI and their families in navigating ARD processes.

摘要

背景

预先研究指令(ARDs)为轻度认知障碍(MCI)患者在失去同意能力之前参与研究决策提供了一种有前景的方式。与此同时,MCI患者对ARDs的看法尚未得到充分探讨。本研究评估了MCI患者及其家庭成员对与ARDs相关的益处和挑战的看法。

目的

本研究的目的是调查MCI患者及其家庭成员对ARDs的看法。我们特别关注参与非治疗性研究的意愿、对ARDs的理解以及其中涉及的伦理考量。

方法

采用半结构化形式进行了13次开放式面对面访谈。对7名MCI患者进行了访谈,对6名MCI患者的家庭成员进行了访谈。访谈内容逐字转录,并进行了定性内容分析。

结果

研究参与和ARDs受到积极看待,主要基于利他动机和为社会做贡献的愿望。参与者认识到ARDs在减轻家庭成员决策负担和维持个人自主权方面的潜在优势。他们还强调了理解ARDs以及应对当前偏好与ARD中所述偏好之间潜在冲突的复杂性方面的挑战。

结论

ARDs主要被视为使MCI患者能够参与研究的有价值工具。本研究深入了解了受影响个体对起草ARDs感兴趣的原因。这些见解可为制定支持性干预措施提供指导,这些措施旨在帮助MCI患者及其家庭应对ARDs流程。