The literature addressing nitrous oxide for the management of labor pain includes few studies of good or fair quality. Further research is needed across all of the areas examined: effectiveness, satisfaction, and adverse effects.
An in-depth case study of the discourse of an Alzheimer's disease (AD) sufferer reveals a variety of intact social and cognitive abilities as well as intact manifestations of selfhood as viewed from a social constructionist point of view. Intact social and cognitive abilities included those which have been referred to by Kitwood andBredin as being indicators of relative well-being-indicators understood to be abilities typically found among the healthy, and whose presence thus signals common ground between the healthy and the afflicted. Such abilities are found to exist despite the sufferer's severe losses of cognitive function as measured by standard tests. Possible brain mechanisms supporting such intact abilities are discussed as well as the importance of recognizing such intact abilities. Such recognition can enhance the interaction between AD sufferers and caregivers.
ObjectiveThere is growing interest in the potential benefits of public involvement (PI) in health and social care research. However, there has been little examination of values underpinning PI or how these values might differ for different groups with an interest in PI in the research process. We aimed to explore areas of consensus and conflict around normative, substantive and process-related values underpinning PI.DesignMixed method, three-phase, modified Delphi study, conducted as part of a larger multiphase project.SettingThe UK health and social care research community.ParticipantsStakeholders in PI in research, defined as: clinical and non-clinical academics, members of the public, research managers, commissioners and funders; identified via research networks, online searches and a literature review.ResultsWe identified high levels of consensus for many normative, substantive and process-related issues. However, there were also areas of conflict in relation to issues of bias and representativeness, and around whether the purpose of PI in health and social care research is to bring about service change or generate new knowledge. There were large differences by group in the percentages endorsing the ethical justification for PI and the argument that PI equalises power imbalances. With regard to practical implementation of PI, research support infrastructures were reported as lacking. Participants reported shortcomings in the uptake and practice of PI. Embedding PI practice and evaluation in research study designs was seen as fundamental to strengthening the evidence base.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the extent to which PI is already embedded in research. However, they also highlight a need for ‘best practice’ standards to assist research teams to understand, implement and evaluate PI. These findings have been used in developing a Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework (PiiAF), which offers guidance to researchers and members of the public involved in the PI process.
Accessible summary• We are people with and without learning disabilities doing research together.• In this paper we talk about the good bits and the bad bits of doing research together.
SummaryIn our paper we talk about what it is like to be a group of people with and without learning disabilities researching together. We describe the process of starting and maintaining the research group and reflect on the obstacles that we have come across, and the rewards such research has brought us. Lastly we put forward some ideas about the role of professionals in such a group that we hope people might find useful.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.