Document is current

Article History

Received: 14 August 2025

Accepted: 19 January 2026

First Online: 28 January 2026

Declarations

:

: This study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki. The study received ethics approval from the Health Research Ethics Board- Health Panel at the University of Alberta (Reference number: Pro00106061). Operational approval was obtained from the LTC home prior to the start of the project. All participants involved in the study had capacity and provided verbal (online Zoom interviews) or written (in-person interviews) informed consent. Participants could stop the interview at any time.When conducting this project, we had two primary ethical considerations: (1) Ensuring voluntary participation of individuals recruited by the LTC manager and through research connections, and (2) Ensuring informed and continuing consent of individuals with cognitive impairment. To mediate these potential concerns, we held a meeting with a member of our research ethics board and multiple meetings among our research team to discuss mediation strategies.To ensure voluntary participation, we emphasized in our recruitment materials that participation was voluntary. We also informed participants that participation was voluntary before the interview and that their participation would not be shared with anyone (including the LTC manager). Participants were also given the option to stop the interviews at any time without repercussions.Ensuring informed consent and capacity to consent were mediated through multiple methods. Neither resident in our study had a history of cognitive impairment or dementia, as identified by the LTC manager, who had an in-depth knowledge of the residents’ histories. The community member in our study living with dementia was able to communicate that his dementia was at an early stage, and is an active research partner in multiple research groups. Prior to conducting the interviews, the interviewer (BDeG), a Registered Nurse with experience working with individuals with dementia, met with the residents and community member to discuss informed consent in detail and the purpose of the study, while providing the opportunity to ask questions. Both residents and the community member, appeared to meet all standards for competent judgement (ability to receive and understand information, process information, appreciate the situation and its consequences, weigh benefits and risks, and communicate decisions) [ , ]. As recommended in the literature, the participants’ behavior, including nonverbal and verbal cues indicating fatigue, confusion, or refusal, was assessed throughout the interview process. However, no concerns were noted throughout the interviews [ ]. Check-ins were also conducted throughout the interviews to ensure ongoing consent.

: Not applicable.

: The authors declare no competing interests.