Dementia is a severe disease that can significantly reduce quality of life. It primarily affects older people, making them more vulnerable. While modern medical science continues to research possible prevention and treatment methods, these efforts require human samples to ensure the effectiveness of the techniques discovered, as Dang et al. (2021) advised. Researchers may analyze the factors that affect the progression of the disease, for example, communication with relatives. Depending on the type of study, the questions may differ, but each option requires the approval of an ethical committee.
The two main groups of research are qualitative and quantitative. Examples of both can be seen in an article by Civilotti et al. (2021), where a single question is answered using different approaches. In qualitative work, the focus is on specific cause-and-effect correlations (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2022). Thus, a research question may be, “How does communication with relatives affect the emotional and psychological state of dementia patients?” With this, interviews may be analyzed and encoded to outline the aspects of this phenomenon.
Conversely, quantitative research usually relies on more extensive data as a basis for conclusions. Here, the question may be, “How is the dementia progression rate impacted among patients communicating with relatives compared to those lacking interactions with relatives?” There, the outcomes will be statistically analyzed to conclude if there is a significant correlation between the two factors (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2022). Thus, the nature of research defines the questions and approach to gathering information.
Including socially vulnerable patients in a study may cause ethical issues that must be considered. In the case of dementia, the question of consent becomes relevant. As Thoft et al. (2021) note, researchers must respect patients’ autonomy, which can be achieved by outlining the study design before data collection. The ethics committee must evaluate this methodology and adhere to its notices to prevent future problems (Dang et al., 2021).
The same idea is highlighted by Hodge et al. (2020), who state that each particular work must be approached individually. Moreover, memory loss among patients may necessitate daily reevaluation of consent. While challenging, this is crucial when working with vulnerable groups. Thus, complex analysis is essential to prevent breaches of regulations, including consensual participation and data security. In conclusion, evaluating scientific work for its ethical implications is necessary, as the harms may outweigh the benefits.
References
Civilotti, C., Di Fini, G., & Maran, D. A. (2021). Trauma and coping strategies in police officers: A quantitative-qualitative pilot study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 982.
Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., & Bissett, K. (2021). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals, fourth edition: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). SIGMA Theta Tau International.
Hodge, J., Foley, S., Brankaert, R., Kenning, G., Lazar, A., Boger, J., & Morrissey, K. (2020). Relational, flexible, everyday: Learning from ethics in dementia research. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2022). Evidence-Based Practice in nursing and Healthcare: A guide to Best Practice. LWW.
Thoft, D. S., Ward, A., & Youell, J. (2021). Journey of ethics – Conducting collaborative research with people with dementia. Dementia, 20(3), 1005–1024.