↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Assessing capacity to consent for research in cognitively impaired older patients

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
Title
Assessing capacity to consent for research in cognitively impaired older patients
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s141905
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Gilbert, Antoine Bosquet, Catherine Thomas-Antérion, Marc Bonnefoy, Olivia Le Saux

Abstract

The number of clinical trials including older patients, and particularly patients with cognitive impairment, is increasing. While statutory provisions exist to make sure that the capacity to consent is assessed systematically for each patient, many gray areas remain with regard to how this assessment is made or should be made in the routine practice of clinical research. The aim of this review was to draw up an inventory of assessment tools evaluating older patients' capacity to consent specifically applicable to clinical research, which could be used in routine practice. Two authors independently searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar data-bases between November 2015 and January 2016. The search was actualized in April 2017. We used keywords (MeSH terms and text words) referring to informed consent, capacity to consent, consent for research, research ethics, cognitive impairment, vulnerable older patients, and assessment tools. Existing reviews were also considered. Among the numerous existing tools for assessing capacity to consent, 14 seemed potentially suited for clinical research and six were evaluated in older patients. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) was the most frequently cited. The MacCAT-CR is currently the most used and the best validated questionnaire. However, it appears difficult to use and time-consuming. A more recent tool, the University of California Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent (UBACC), seems interesting for routine practice because of its simplicity, relevance, and applicability in older patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 23 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Psychology 11 13%
Social Sciences 8 9%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#5,242,603
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#550
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,900
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#20
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.