Around the world, millions of people live with dementia. Archaeologists have advanced heritage engagement as a form of therapy, for example, through museum object handling. Here, the author proposes an alternative focus, arguing that archaeology can contribute to research on the materialities of care. Through a case study of a ‘dementia assemblage’ curated by an avocational archaeologist, the author documents the embodied and material traces of the collector's earlier archaeological practices, their increasing comfort in handling stone as dementia progressed and their sustained interest in the pareidolic properties of things. The results contribute to a wider understanding of the important role of materiality for those living with dementia.

Medical research with incompetent patients which is expected to yield only questionable or no individual benefit (and which is often wrongly equated with non-therapeutic research) remains a difficult and controversial problem. This is reflected in the fact that such research is legally admissible in some countries such as France and England, but is questionable or prohibited in other countries, eg, Germany. Such research can only be justified ethically if the need for it is set forth according to defined criteria, and if defined protective criteria are fulfilled, particularly to ensure that the research-related instrumentalisation of the patient is held in check by observing respect for the patient's dignity, to ensure that research does not involve more than minimal risks and negligible stress for the individual participant, and that the patient's refusal to participate is accepted. A broad international consensus exists with regard to these criteria [9, 21, 26, 41]. But concepts and definitions as to what constitutes benefits and risks, as well as criteria and procedures in weighing benefits against risks, and, not least of all, the weighing of individual benefit against societal benefit, require clarification. The question must also be satisfactorily answered: who is to do the weighing? But above all, it must be ensured by professional education that this process of checks and controls is effectively carried out in day-to-day medical-scientific life.

Background: Dementia research often requires the participation of people with dementia. Obtaining informed consent is problematic when potential participants lack the capacity to provide it. We investigated comfort with proxy consent to research involving older adults deemed incapable of this decision, and examined if comfort varies with the type of proxy and the study's risk-benefit profile.

Methods: We surveyed random samples of five relevant groups (older adults, informal caregivers, physicians, researchers in aging, and Research Ethics Board members) from four Canadian provinces. Respondents were presented with scenarios involving four types of proxies (non-assigned, designated in a healthcare advance directive with or without instructions specific to research participation, and court-appointed). Given a series of risk-benefit profiles, respondents indicated whether they were comfortable with proxy consent to research for each scenario.

Results: Two percent of the respondents felt proxy consent should never be allowed. In all groups, comfort depended far more on the risk-benefit profile associated with the research scenario than with type of proxy. For research involving little or no risk and potential personal benefits, over 90% of the respondents felt comfortable with substitute consent by a designated or court-appointed proxy while 80% were at ease with a non-assigned proxy. For studies involving serious risks with potentially greater personal benefits, older adults and informal caregivers were less comfortable with proxy consent.

Conclusions: A large majority of Canadians are comfortable with proxy consent for low-risk research. Further work is needed to establish what kinds of research are considered to be low risk.

There is a gap between the knowledge obtained in dementia research and the practical use of it. This review examines the concept of knowledge translation (KT) and the process of translating research into practice in the field of dementia. KT in dementia practice involves key players including researchers, educators, clinicians, policy-makers, the general public and consumers who act within a multidimensional network, disseminating findings widely to effect changes in community awareness, clinical practice and health policy. Challenges include the volume of dementia research; difficulties in determining who is responsible for KT; the problems of premature KT; the lack of resources to perform KT; the paucity of research about effective KT strategies; and the characteristics of the dementia care workforce. Key features of effective KT include a simple compelling message; use of interpersonal contact and roles; a practical framework with an emphasis on “know-how”; and the provision of resources and support. More effective dementia KT will require a commitment by key players to engage in the process, a better understanding of effective KT strategies, adequate resources, and judicious selection of appropriate evidence-based information.