🏠
HomeSubjects
➗
Math🧪
Science🏛️
History📺
Arts & Humanities🤝
Social Studies💻
Engineering & Technology💰
Business📚
OtherResources
📓
Study Guides🏆
Leaderboard💯
❓
Unanswered🔀
Random Tags🏢
Business Communication🤝
Business Ethics🌎
Ethics and Morality
In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
1. Dunn M. Contextualising consent. J Med Ethics 2016;42:67–8. 10.1136/medethics-2016-103381 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Mental Capacity Act. 2005. //www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/pdfs/ukpga_20050009_en.pdf
3. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations. 2004. //www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/pdfs/uksi_20041031_en.pdf
4. Shepherd V. Research involving adults lacking capacity to consent: the impact of research regulation on ‘evidence biased’ medicine. BMC Med Ethics 2016;17:8 10.1186/s12910-016-0138-9 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Head MG, Walker SL, Nalabanda A, et al.. Researching Scabies Outbreaks among People in Residential Care and Lacking Capacity to Consent: A Case Study. Public Health Ethics 2017;10:90–5. 10.1093/phe/phv011 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Dixon-Woods M, Angell EL. Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements? J Med Ethics 2009;35:377–81. 10.1136/jme.2008.027094 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Wood F, Prout H, Bayer A, et al.. Consent, including advanced consent, of older adults to research in care homes: a qualitative study of stakeholders' views in South Wales. Trials 2013;14:247 10.1186/1745-6215-14-247 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Whelan PJ, Walwyn R, Gaughran F, et al.. Impact of the demand for ’proxy assent' on recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of vaccination testing in care homes. J Med Ethics 2013;39:36–40. 10.1136/medethics-2011-100119 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Hood K, Nuttall J, Gillespie D, et al.. Probiotics for Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhoea (PAAD): a prospective observational study of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (including Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea) in care homes. Health Technol Assess 2014;18:1–84. 10.3310/hta18630 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Helmchen H, Hoppu K, Stock G, et al.. From exclusion to inclusion : improving clinical research in vulnerable populations; memorandum. 2014. //edoc.bbaw.de/opus4-bbaw/frontdoor/index/index/docId/2290
11. Age UK. Improving later life: Understanding the oldest old. 2013. //www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/health-wellbeing/rb_feb13_understanding_the_oldest_old_improving_later_life.pdf
12. McFadyen J, Rankin J. The role of gatekeepers in research: learning from reflexivity and reflection. J Nurs Heal Care 2016. [Google Scholar]
13. Manthorpe J, Samsi K, Heath H, et al.. ‘Early days’: knowledge and use of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by care home managers and staff. Dementia 2011;10:283–98. 10.1177/1471301211403970 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Stone K, Hotopf M, Koffman J, et al.. Morecare capacity: mental capacity and processes of consent for research on end-of-life care. BMJ Support Palliat Care 2013. [Google Scholar]
15. Bravo G, Pâquet M, Dubois MF. Knowledge of the legislation governing proxy consent to treatment and research. J Med Ethics 2003;29:44–50. 10.1136/jme.29.1.44 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Karlawish JH, Knopman D, Clark CM, et al.. Informed consent for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: a survey of clinical investigators. IRB 2002;24:1 10.2307/3563802 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Flick U. Designing qualitative research. London: SAGE, 2008. [Google Scholar]
18. Finch J. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 1987;21:105–14. 10.1177/0038038587021001008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Wainwright P, Gallagher A, Tompsett H, et al.. The use of vignettes within a Delphi exercise: a useful approach in empirical ethics? J Med Ethics 2010;36:656–60. 10.1136/jme.2010.036616 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Department of Constitutional Affairs. Mental capacity act 2005: Code of Practice: The Stationery Offi ce, 2007. [Google Scholar]
21. Edwards SJ. Vulnerable adults in research: a tale of two regulations LSE Centre for the Study of Human Rights event, 2007. //www.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/aboutUs/articlesAndTranscripts/Testing_Medicines_Edwards.pdf (accessed 22 Nov 2017).
22. Samanta J. Lasting powers of attorney for healthcare under the mental capacity act 2005: enhanced prospective self-determination for future incapacity or a simulacrum? Med Law Rev 2009;17:377–409. 10.1093/medlaw/fwp018 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Berger JT. Is best interests a relevant decision making standard for enrolling non-capacitated subjects into clinical research? J Med Ethics 2011;37:45–9. 10.1136/jme.2010.037515 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Law E. Research in care homes issues of participation and citizenship. //dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/25305/1/Emma Law Final version May 1st.pdf (accessed 22 Nov 2017).
25. Bravo G, Wildeman S, Dubois MF, et al.. Substitute consent practices in the face of uncertainty: a survey of Canadian researchers in aging. Int Psychogeriatr 2013;25:1821–30. 10.1017/S1041610213001336 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Page 2
Journal of Medical Ethics
Participant characteristics
Characteristic | Participants n (%) |
Country | |
England | 56 (44%) |
Wales | 71 (56%) |
Gender | |
Male | 21 (17%) |
Female | 102 (80%) |
Prefer not to say | 4 (3%) |
Professional background* | |
Medical professional | 28 (22%) |
Nurse | 44 (35%) |
Allied health professional | 29 (23%) |
Social care practitioner | 28 (22%) |
Length of time in profession | |
<12 months | 1 (1%) |
1–2 years | 6 (4%) |
2–5 years | 4 (3%) |
5–8 years | 11 (9%) |
>8 years | 105 (83%) |
Involvement in research as part of role | |
No | 47 (37%) |
Yes | 80 (63%) |
If yes * | |
In a minor role (research being carried out where I work) | 33 (41%) |
Informing patients/service users about research studies | 37 (46%) |
Recruiting participants for research studies | 44 (55%) |
As a principal investigator at a research site | 18 (22%) |
As a chief investigator | 11 (14%) |
Heard about the survey | |
Invited through research/professional network or organisation | 89 (70%) |
Shared on social media | 30 (24%) |
Other | 8 (6%) |