Physical Activity Inclusion in Dementia-Friendly Communities: A Mixed Methods Study.

Dementia-friendly communities (DFCs) are a policy-endorsed approach to community engagement in England that promotes social inclusion to enable people affected by dementia to live well. Research suggests that physical activity is beneficial in encouraging social connection and improving health. A mixed method sequential study design in England involving a national survey (n = 31) and semistructured interviews (n = 65) in three DFCs was carried out. The aim was to understand how DFCs enable people affected by dementia to participate in physical activities. An evaluation framework for DFCs was used to organize and interpret the data, and analysis was informed by the inclusive (social) citizen lens. Findings showed that DFCs offered a range of adapted dementia-inclusive and dementia-specific activities; however, people were not routinely offered information at time of diagnosis. Local authorities (councils) were key to enable access to information and infrastructure change to support sustainable inclusion within their local community.

Copenhagen Consensus statement 2019: physical activity and ageing.

From 19th to 22nd November 2018, 26 researchers representing nine countries and a variety of academic disciplines met in Snekkersten, Denmark, to reach evidence-based consensus about physical activity and older adults. It was recognised that the term 'older adults' represents a highly heterogeneous population. It encompasses those that remain highly active and healthy throughout the life-course with a high intrinsic capacity to the very old and frail with low intrinsic capacity. The consensus is drawn from a wide range of research methodologies within epidemiology, medicine, physiology, neuroscience, psychology and sociology, recognising the strength and limitations of each of the methods. Much of the evidence presented in the statements is based on longitudinal associations from observational and randomised controlled intervention studies, as well as quantitative and qualitative social studies in relatively healthy community-dwelling older adults. Nevertheless, we also considered research with frail older adults and those with age-associated neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and in a few cases molecular and cellular outcome measures from animal studies. The consensus statements distinguish between physical activity and exercise. Physical activity is used as an umbrella term that includes both structured and unstructured forms of leisure, transport, domestic and work-related activities. Physical activity entails body movement that increases energy expenditure relative to rest, and is often characterised in terms of intensity from light, to moderate to vigorous. Exercise is defined as a subset of structured physical activities that are more specifically designed to improve cardiorespiratory fitness, cognitive function, flexibility balance, strength and/or power. This statement presents the consensus on the effects of physical activity on older adults' fitness, health, cognitive functioning, functional capacity, engagement, motivation, psychological well-being and social inclusion. It also covers the consensus on physical activity implementation strategies. While it is recognised that adverse events can occur during exercise, the risk can be minimised by carefully choosing the type of activity undertaken and by consultation with the individual's physician when warranted, for example, when the individual is frail, has a number of co-morbidities, or has exercise-related symptoms, such as chest pain, heart arrhythmia or dizziness. The consensus was obtained through an iterative process that began with the presentation of the state-of-the-science in each domain, followed by group and plenary discussions. Ultimately, the participants reached agreement on the 30-item consensus statements.

In need of remedy: US policy for compensating injured research participants.

There is an emerging ethical consensus that injured research participants should receive medical care and compensation for their research-related injuries. This consensus is premised on notions of beneficence, distributive justice, compensatory justice and reciprocity. In response, countries around the world have implemented no-fault compensation systems to ensure that research participants are adequately protected in the event of injury. The United States, the world's leading sponsor of research, has chosen instead to rely on its legal system to provide injured research participants with medical care and compensation. This article argues that US reliance on its legal system leaves injured research participants unprotected in the event of injury. Nearly every injured research participant will have difficulty receiving compensation in court, and certain classes of research participants will be barred from receiving compensation altogether. The United States' outlier status also threatens to impede US-sponsored multinational research, potentially delaying important biomedical advances. To rectify this injustice, researchers, Institutional Review Boards, sponsors and research institutions should advocate systematic no-fault compensation in the United States to bring US law into accord with global ethical norms and ensure that injured research participants are adequately protected.

Finding Fault? Exploring Legal Duties to Return Incidental Findings in Genomic Research.

The use of whole-genome sequencing in biomedical research is expected to produce dramatic advances in human health. The increasing use of this powerful, data-rich new technology in research, however, will inevitably give rise to incidental findings (IFs)-findings with individual health or reproductive significance that are beyond the aims of the particular research-and the related questions of whether and to what extent researchers have an ethical obligation to return IFs. Many have concluded that researchers have an ethical obligation to return some findings in some circumstances but have provided vague or context-dependent approaches to determining which IFs must be returned and when. As a result, researchers have started returning IFs inconsistently, giving rise to concerns about legal liability in circumstances in which notification could have potentially prevented injury. Although it is clear that ethical guidance should not be automatically codified as law and that crafting ethical obligations around legal duties can be inappropriate, the ethical debate should not proceed unaware of the potential legal ramifications of advancing and implementing an ethical obligation to return IFs. This Article assesses the legal claims that could be brought for a researcher's failure to return IFs. The potential for researchers to be held liable in tort is still uncertain and turns largely on a number of factors-including customary practice and guidance documents-that are still in flux. Unlike medical care, which has a well-defined duty into which evolving scientific knowledge about genetics and genomics can readily be incorporated, a researcher's duty to return IFs is less well defined, making it difficult to determine at the outset whether and when legal liability will attach. This Article advocates for a clearer, ethically sound standard of requiring that researchers disclose in the informed consent document which approach to offering IFs will be taken. This approach enables participants to know at the outset which findings, if any, will be returned, allows researchers to ascertain when their failure to appropriately return incidental findings will give rise to liability, and enables courts to make determinations that will produce more consistent legal guidance.

Recovering from research: a no-fault proposal to compensate injured research participants.

National advisory committees have considered the obligations owed to research participants in the event of research-related injuries. These committees have repeatedly concluded that injured research participants are entitled to compensation for their injuries, that the tort system provides inadequate remedies, and that the United States should adopt no-fault compensation. But because the advisory committees have made no concrete proposals and have taken no steps toward implementing no-fault compensation, the United States continues to rely on the tort system to compensate injured research participants. This Article argues that recent legal developments and a transformation in the global research landscape make maintaining the status quo morally indefensible and practically unsustainable. Recent legal developments exacerbate the longstanding difficulties associated with the tort system as a method of compensation; nearly every injured research participant will have difficulty recovering damages, and certain classes of injured research participants--those in federal research and those abroad--are prevented from recovering altogether, resulting in substantial unfairness. In the past ten years, many of the countries substantially involved in research have mandated systematic compensation. By not mandating compensation, the United States has become a moral outlier and risks having its noncompliant research embargoed by foreign ethics committees, thereby delaying important biomedical advances. This Article examines alternative compensation mechanisms and offers a concrete no-fault compensation proposal built on systems already in place. The proposed system can be implemented in the United States and countries around the world to help harmonize various national compensation systems and to more equitably and effectively make those injured by research whole.

The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are conservation tools intended to protect biodiversity, promote healthy and resilient marine ecosystems, and provide societal benefits. Despite codification of MPAs in international agreements, MPA effectiveness is currently undermined by confusion about the many MPA types and consequent wildly differing outcomes. We present a clarifying science-driven framework­The MPA Guide­to aid design and evaluation. The guide categorizes MPAs by stage of establishment and level of protection, specifies the resulting direct and indirect outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being, and describes the key conditions necessary for positive outcomes. Use of this MPA Guide by scientists, managers, policy-makers, and communities can improve effective design, implementation, assessment, and tracking of existing and future MPAs to achieve conservation goals by using scientifically grounded practices.

The rise in bilateral mastectomies: Evidence, ethics, and physician's role.

This viewpoint reviews double mastectomies' trend, medical evidence and ethical considerations, as well as the role of the physician in counseling the patient. It concludes that physicians should encourage patients to pursue alternative preventive measures, and promote bilateral mastectomies only for high-risk patients for whom the potential benefits of the surgery are sufficient to justify the surgery's increased risks.

Just compensation: a no-fault proposal for research-related injuries.

Biomedical research, no matter how well designed and ethically conducted, carries uncertainties and exposes participants to risk of injury. Research injuries can range from the relatively minor to those that result in hospitalization, permanent disability, or even death. Participants might also suffer a range of economic harms related to their injuries. Unlike the vast majority of developed countries, which have implemented no-fault compensation systems, the United States continues to rely on the tort system to compensate injured research participants-an approach that is no longer morally defensible. Despite decades of US advisory panels advocating for no-fault compensation, little progress has been made. Accordingly, this article proposes a novel and necessary no-fault compensation system, grounded in the ethical notion of compensatory justice. This first-of-its-kind concrete proposal aims to treat like cases alike, offer fair compensation, and disburse compensation with maximum efficiency and minimum administrative cost. It also harmonizes national and international approaches-an increasingly important goal as research becomes more globalized, multi-site trials grow in number, and institutions and sponsors in the United States move to single-IRB review.