Home › Research › Digital health tools
Including older people with dementia in research: Challenges and strategies
Gill Hubbard, MURNA G. DOWNS, Susan Tester. Aging & Mental Health, 2003-09-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
This paper examines key challenges and strategies for including older people with dementia in an ethnographic study of quality of life in institutional care settings. The methods of interview and observation are described in relation to meeting four research challenges: verbal communication impairment, memory loss, decision-making capacity, and emotional disposition. A range of strategies for privileging the voice of the person with dementia is recommended which include: using different methods be spoke to each person with dementia; greater flexibility and time; preliminary meetings with the person with dementia; discussions with formal and informal carers; and research training. The researchers also conclude that the use of observation and interview are 'meaning-making occasions' which are qualitatively different but equally valuable for understanding quality of life in care settings.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hubbard, G., DOWNS, M. G., & Tester, S. (2003). Including older people with dementia in research: Challenges and strategies. Aging & Mental Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360786031000150685
Vancouver
Hubbard G, DOWNS MG, Tester S. Including older people with dementia in research: Challenges and strategies. Aging & Mental Health. 2003. doi:10.1080/1360786031000150685. PMID: 12959804.
BibTeX
@article{hubbard2003-12959804,
author = {Hubbard, Gill and DOWNS, MURNA G. and Tester, Susan},
title = {{Including older people with dementia in research: Challenges and strategies}},
journal = {Aging \& Mental Health},
year = {2003},
doi = {10.1080/1360786031000150685},
pmid = {12959804},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/1360786031000150685}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The researchers also conclude that the use of observation and interview are 'meaning-making occasions' which are qualitatively different but equally valuable for understanding quality of life in care settings.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging & Mental Health) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2003 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 12959804) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.