Safeguarding Vulnerable Populations

 Many illnesses, like Alzheimer's disease and chronic alcoholism, cause cognitive impairment, affecting millions in the United States. Research is crucial to improve understanding and treatment of these conditions. However, involving cognitively impaired individuals presents unique ethical challenges due to their vulnerability to coercion. This blog post explores these concerns and the safeguards in place to protect participants in research.

The Importance of Research and the Challenge of Informed Consent

Research with cognitively impaired individuals is vital for developing effective therapies. However, obtaining informed consent, a core ethical principle requiring participants to understand the risks and benefits of research, becomes difficult with cognitive impairment.

Safeguards for Protecting Participants

federal regulations (the common rule) provide additional safeguards for vulnerable populations, including those with cognitive impairment, and those safeguards include (Oruche 2009):

Advanced informed consent: Obtaining informed consent before a predictable decline in capacity occurs.

The durable power of attorney/proxy decision-making: Allowing a designated person to make research decisions on behalf of the participant.

Assent: Obtaining participants' agreement to participate, even if they cannot fully understand the research details.

Gaps in Regulations and Areas for Improvement

While these safeguards exist, there are gaps in federal regulations, and according to Oruche (2009), these gaps include:

Lack of clear guidelines for assessing decision-making capacity.

Variation by state on who can be legally authorized representative.

Potential for safeguards to unintentionally exclude participants from research advancements.

The Role of Nurse Researchers

Nurse researchers play a vital role in protecting participants with cognitive impairment. Here's how nurses can contribute (Oruche 2009): 

1. Advocating for proper screening: Identifying participants at risk for cognitive impairment.
2. Supporting objective tools: Ensuring decision-making capacity is assessed using standardized tools.
3. Enhancing informed consent: Presenting research information clearly and straightforwardly, considering the participant's learning style.

Conclusion

Research with cognitively impaired individuals is essential for progress. Nurse researchers can ensure the protection of these participants by understanding the ethical concerns and available safeguards while promoting equitable access to research opportunities.

References

Oruche, U. M. (2009). Research With Cognitively Impaired Participants. Journal of Nursing law, 13(3), 73227162. https://doi.org/10.1891/1073-7472.13.3.89

Rock Me, Amadeus!

Spiegel (2010) conducted a massive review of research on the popular idea that listening to classical music can boost intelligence, particularly in babies. The title "Mozart Effect, Schomazart Effect" pretty much sums up the conclusion: no evidence supports his claim.

But even though blasting Beethoven won't make you a genius, the story of the Mozart Effect's rise and fall offers valuable lessons about science, media, and ...death threats.

A Small Study, Big Hype

In 1993, psychologist Francis Rauscher conducted a study in which college students listened to Mozart, silence, or monotone speech, followed by a spatial reasoning test. The Mozart group scored slightly higher, but the effect only lasted 10 to 15 minutes. Aware of the limitations, Rauscher published a single-page paper in Nature (Spiegel 2010).

Here's where things get interesting. Rauscher received a call from the Associated Press before publishing her paper. Once the AP story broke, the media went wild. Rauscher found herself on national news, bombarded with calls and facing headlines like "Mozart Makes You Smart!  (Spiegel 2010)

From Molehill to Mountain

Speigel (2010) states that Rauscher's modest finding was massively distorted. The public was fixated on classical music boosting children's intelligence, leading to bizarre situations like Georgia giving free Mozart CDs to newborns (Spiegal 2010)!

Why the Hype?

Spiegel (2010) writes that Rauscher attributes the frenzy to a few factors: Americans' love of self-improvement and quick fixes and parents' natural desire to give their children every advantage.

The Real Takeaway

Spiegel (2010) writes that Rauscher maintains her original finding but clarifies that it's not about Mozart specifically. Any engaging music can provide a short-term cognitive boost compared to silence. The real key takeaway is to keep jamming to your favorites.

References

Spiegel, A. (2010, June 28). “Mozart Effect” Was Just What We Wanted To Hear. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2010/06/28/128104580/mozart-effect-was-just-what-we-wanted-to-hear

Brain Games: Helpful Tool or False Promise?

 Many of us seek ways to stay sharp and improve our cognitive function. This is where brain training games come in. They promise to boost memory and attention and even protect against age-related decline. But are these claims too good to be true?

This blog post dives into the recent case of Lumos Labs, the makers of the popular brain training program Lumosity, and their legal troubles with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Lumos Labs Settles Deceptive Advertising Charges

This is what Robbennolt (2016) informed us in their article:

• Lumos Labs settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing.
  
• They agreed to stop making these claims and to pay 2 million dollars.
• They must also now ensure any future claims about Lumosity's benefits are based on solid scientific research.

What Does the Science Say?

Robbennolt (2016) tell us:

1. The science of brain training games is still developing.
2. Researchers know that the brain is adaptable and can continue learning throughout life.
3. More research is needed to understand the specific effects of different brain training programs and whether these benefits translate to real-world improvements.
4. Alternative Strategies for Cognitive Health

Psychologists recommend other strategies for maintaining cognitive health, such as physical exercise and social engagement.  These activities not only benefit your mind but also your overall physical well-being. (Robbennolt 2016)

The Bottom Line

Brain training games may be a fun and engaging way to challenge your mind, but consumers should be wary of exaggerated claims. As research continues, companies like Lumosity need to ensure their advertising reflects the current state of scientific knowledge. In the meantime, consider alternative strategies backed by stronger scientific evidence to keep your mind sharp.

References

Robbennolt, J. (2016, September). “Brain games”: Helpful tool or false promise? Apa.org. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/09/jn