research ethics

研究伦理
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:认识到他们作为健康差异人群的地位,越来越重视开展包括智障成年人在内的研究,以产生新的知识和机会来改善健康和公平。然而,他们经常被排除在研究之外,和人类研究参与者保护专家和研究人员在有效的同意协议上缺乏共识。
    目的:我们试图在基于美国的智障成人社会行为研究中确定同意的方法。
    方法:我们对2009年至2023年发表的智障成年人自我同意的方法进行了系统评价,通过搜索八个数据库和参考列表手搜索确定。我们确定了13份手稿并进行了主题分析。
    结果:我们的分析确定了与指导原则相关的主题,加强知情和自愿同意的战略,同意能力的方法,涉及受监护的个人,以及表达决策和加强正在进行的决策的策略。
    结论:手稿主要反映了对确定同意方法的强调,这些方法反映了残疾人权利原则,以促进被纳入的权利,并根据对相关信息的评估做出自己的决定,风险和收益,并采用合理的修改来实现包容。为了避免被排斥的风险,并促进对智障成年人的负责任的包容,我们提出建议,以调整基于当代人类研究参与者保护思想的同意方法,包括通过融入残疾人权利。
    BACKGROUND: In recognition of their status as a health disparities population, there is growing emphasis on conducting research inclusive of adults with intellectual disability to generate new knowledge and opportunities to improve health and equity. Yet they are often excluded from research, and human research participant protection experts and researchers lack agreement on effective consent protocols for their inclusion.
    OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify approaches to consent in US-based social-behavioral research with adults with intellectual disability.
    METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on approaches to self-consent with adults with intellectual disability published between 2009 and 2023, identified via searching eight databases and reference list hand searches. We identified 13 manuscripts and conducted a thematic analysis.
    RESULTS: Our analysis identified themes related to guiding principles, strategies to enhance informed and voluntary consent, approaches to consent capacity, involving individuals subject to guardianship, and strategies for expressing decisions and enhancing ongoing decisions.
    CONCLUSIONS: Manuscripts largely reflected an emphasis on identifying approaches to consent that reflect disability rights principles to promote the right to be included and make one\'s own decisions based on assessment of relevant information, risks and benefits, and to employ reasonable modifications to achieve inclusion. To avoid the risks of exclusion and advance the responsible inclusion of adults with intellectual disability, we make recommendations to align consent approaches anchored in contemporary thinking about human research participant protections, including through integration with disability rights.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    对多中心研究的单一IRB(sIRB)审查的主要关注,正如现在联邦政策所要求的那样,sIRB在审查中是否以及如何考虑当地情况。虽然已经提出了几种类型的本地背景考虑因素,对于地方背景审查的目标和内容,负责对人类受试者研究进行伦理监督的人之间没有共同的协议,sIRB审查可能不合适的研究类型。通过对已发表奖学金的范围审查,公众意见,和联邦指导文件,我们为本地背景审查确定了五个假设目标:保护本地参与者的权利和福利;确保遵守适用法律和政策;评估可行性;提高研究质量;促进程序正义。虽然各种内容被提议是相关的,它主要分为四个领域:人口/参与者级别的特征;研究者和研究团队的特征;机构级别的特征;以及州和地方法律.排除在sIRB要求之外的拟议特征反映了基于保护和效率的关切。这些发现可以为正在进行的努力提供信息,以评估强制sIRB审查的政策的影响,以及这些政策的例外情况何时可能是适当的。
    A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    软技能是基本的管理,个人,和人际交往能力对个人在工作场所或个人生活中的效率至关重要。每个工作场所都需要不同的软技能。因此,除了在短时间内更容易获得的科学/技术技能之外,在当今的国际工作环境中,几个关键的软技能对于研究人员的成功至关重要。在本文中,EU-CardioRNACOSTActionCA17129软技能培训学校的学员和培训师为早期职业研究人员提供基本和高级软技能。这里,我们特别强调可转移和演示技巧的重要性,伦理,文学阅读和复习,研究协议和资助写作,网络,和研究人员的职业机会。所有这些技能都是至关重要的,但经常被一些学者忽视。我们还提供上述技能的技巧,这些技能在学术界和工业界早期和晚期职业研究人员的日常生活中至关重要。
    Soft skills are the elementary management, personal, and interpersonal abilities that are vital for an individual to be efficient at workplace or in their personal life. Each work place requires different set of soft skills. Thus, in addition to scientific/technical skills that are easier to access within a short time frame, several key soft skills are essential for the success of a researcher in today\'s international work environment. In this paper, the trainees and trainers of the EU-CardioRNA COST Action CA17129 training school on soft skills present basic and advanced soft skills for early career researchers. Here, we particularly emphasize on the importance of transferable and presentation skills, ethics, literature reading and reviewing, research protocol and grant writing, networking, and career opportunities for researchers. All these skills are vital but are often overlooked by some scholars. We also provide tips to ace in aforementioned skills that are crucial in a day-to-day life of early and late career researchers in academia and industry.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    亚洲拥有世界第二大国际移民人口。在东南亚(SEA),迁移的主要类型是劳动力迁移,强迫迁移,和环境迁移。本范围审查旨在确定当前关于SEA中流动和边缘化人群的医疗保健伦理研究的关键主题和差距,以及涉及这些人群的研究伦理。
    我们使用三个广泛的概念进行了范围审查:人口(无状态人口,移民,难民,寻求庇护者,国内流离失所者),问题(医疗保健和道德),和背景(SEA中的11个国家)。三个数据库(PubMed,CINAHL,和WebofScience)从2000年到2023年5月进行了为期四个月(2023年2月至2023年5月)的搜索。通过引文搜索确定了其他相关出版物,手工搜索了六本生物伦理学期刊。所有的搜索都是用英语进行的,并根据纳入和排除标准筛选相关出版物.随后将数据导入NVivo14,并进行专题分析。
    我们确定了18篇具有大量生物伦理分析的论文。指导分析的伦理概念是能力,agency,尊严\',\'漏洞\',\'不稳定,同谋,和结构性暴力(n=7)。从研究伦理的角度讨论了伦理问题(n=9),临床伦理(n=1)和公共卫生伦理(n=1)。所有出版物均来自新加坡的研究人员,泰国,和马来西亚。发现的研究差距包括需要更多涉及移民儿童的研究,来自移民输出国的研究,关于移民医疗质量的研究,参与式健康研究,和研究内部移民。
    有必要进行更多的实证研究,以更好地了解研究领域中存在的伦理问题,临床护理,和公共卫生。对移民之间相互作用的严格审查,考虑到所涉及的多种因素和环境的健康和道德对于提高SEA中的移民健康道德至关重要。
    UNASSIGNED: Asia hosts the second-largest international migrant population in the world. In Southeast Asia (SEA), key types of migration are labour migration, forced migration, and environmental migration. This scoping review seeks to identify key themes and gaps in current research on the ethics of healthcare for mobile and marginalised populations in SEA, and the ethics of research involving these populations.
    UNASSIGNED: We performed a scoping review using three broad concepts: population (stateless population, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced people), issues (healthcare and ethics), and context (11 countries in SEA). Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science) were searched from 2000 until May 2023 over a period of four months (February 2023 to May 2023). Other relevant publications were identified through citation searches, and six bioethics journals were hand searched. All searches were conducted in English, and relevant publications were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were subsequently imported into NVivo 14, and thematic analysis was conducted.
    UNASSIGNED: We identified 18 papers with substantial bioethical analysis. Ethical concepts that guide the analysis were \'capability, agency, dignity\', \'vulnerability\', \'precarity, complicity, and structural violence\' (n=7). Ethical issues were discussed from the perspective of research ethics (n=9), clinical ethics (n=1) and public health ethics (n=1). All publications are from researchers based in Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia. Research gaps identified include the need for more research involving migrant children, research from migrant-sending countries, studies on quality of migrant healthcare, participatory health research, and research with internal migrants.
    UNASSIGNED: More empirical research is necessary to better understand the ethical issues that exist in the domains of research, clinical care, and public health. Critical examination of the interplay between migration, health and ethics with consideration of the diverse factors and contexts involved is crucial for the advancement of migration health ethics in SEA.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究的目的是回顾使用定性研究方法的基于医院的健康信息系统(HIS)研究,并评估其方法学背景和含义。此外,我们为计划使用定性研究方法的HIS研究人员提出了实用指南.
    方法:我们通过搜索PubMed和CINAHL数据库收集了2012年至2022年发表的论文。作为搜索关键字,我们使用了与HIS相关的特定系统术语,如“电子病历”和“临床决策支持系统”,“与他们的操作条款联系在一起,如“实施”和“适应”,“和定性方法论术语,如“观察”和“深度访谈”。“我们最终选择了74项符合本综述纳入标准的研究,并对所选研究进行了分析性综述。
    结果:我们根据以下四点对所选文章进行了分析:所选文章的一般特征;研究设计;参与者抽样,identification,和招聘;和数据收集,processing,和分析。这篇综述发现了有关研究人员反思的方法论问题,参与者抽样方法和研究可及性,和数据管理。
    结论:关于定性研究过程的报告应包括对研究人员的反思和伦理考虑的描述,这对于加强定性研究的严谨性和可信度具有重要意义。基于这些讨论,我们建议指导道德,可行,以及对医院环境中HIS的可靠定性研究。
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review hospital-based health information system (HIS) studies that used qualitative research methods and evaluate their methodological contexts and implications. In addition, we propose practical guidelines for HIS researchers who plan to use qualitative research methods.
    METHODS: We collected papers published from 2012 to 2022 by searching the PubMed and CINAHL databases. As search keywords, we used specific system terms related to HISs, such as \"electronic medical records\" and \"clinical decision support systems,\" linked with their operational terms, such as \"implementation\" and \"adaptation,\" and qualitative methodological terms such as \"observation\" and \"in-depth interview.\" We finally selected 74 studies that met this review\'s inclusion criteria and conducted an analytical review of the selected studies.
    RESULTS: We analyzed the selected articles according to the following four points: the general characteristics of the selected articles; research design; participant sampling, identification, and recruitment; and data collection, processing, and analysis. This review found methodologically problematic issues regarding researchers\' reflections, participant sampling methods and research accessibility, and data management.
    CONCLUSIONS: Reports on the qualitative research process should include descriptions of researchers\' reflections and ethical considerations, which are meaningful for strengthening the rigor and credibility of qualitative research. Based on these discussions, we suggest guidance for conducting ethical, feasible, and reliable qualitative research on HISs in hospital settings.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    机构审查委员会(IRB)对当地情况进行审查的性质含糊不清。对多中心试验进行单一IRB审查的要求需要更好地理解当地背景审查的解释和实施,以及如何最好地集中实施此类审查。我们通过探索利益相关者的态度和看法,寻求对IRB本地背景审查的务实理解。与26名IRB成员和工作人员进行了半结构化访谈,机构官员,研究人员与80项类似利益相关者的调查进行了整合,并通过基于主题的定性文本分析和描述性统计分析进行了分析。利益相关者描述了他们认为是当地的情况,地方背景审查的价值,以及用于实施对一般当地情况的审查以及除知情同意外进行的紧急情况研究的关键过程。与会者表达了集中审查当地情况的关切和潜在优势。视角的变化表明,本地背景审查不是一个离散的过程,这为定义单一IRB审查的途径提供了机会。
    The nature of the review of local context by institutional review boards (IRBs) is vague. Requirements for single IRB review of multicenter trials create a need to better understand interpretation and implementation of local-context review and how to best implement such reviews centrally. We sought a pragmatic understanding of IRB local-context review by exploring stakeholders\' attitudes and perceptions. Semistructured interviews with 26 IRB members and staff members, institutional officials, and investigators were integrated with 80 surveys of similar stakeholders and analyzed with qualitative theme-based text analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. Stakeholders described what they considered to be local context, the value of local-context review, and key processes used to implement review of local context in general and for emergency research conducted with an exception from informed consent. Concerns and potential advantages of centralized review of local context were expressed. Variability in perspectives suggests that local-context review is not a discrete process, which presents opportunities for defining pathways for single IRB review.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    本案例分析了专业知识,潜在的利益冲突,编辑的客观性,作者,以及参与2022年生育问题特刊的同行审稿人,怀孕,和心理健康。收集了有关资格的数据,组织隶属关系,以及六篇论文作者之间的关系,三位客座编辑,和十二位同行评审员。两篇文章被发现作者之间存在未公开的利益冲突,一个编辑,以及与反堕胎倡导和游说团体有关联的多个同行评审员,表明客观性受损。这种缺乏透明度破坏了同行审查过程,并导致有偏见的研究和虚假信息扩散。我们的研究受到几个因素的限制,包括:难以收集同行评审数据,可能缺失的隶属关系,和一个没有比较的小样本。虽然这是一个特刊的案例研究,我们确实有提高诚信的建议。
    This case study analyzes the expertise, potential conflicts of interest, and objectivity of editors, authors, and peer reviewers involved in a 2022 special journal issue on fertility, pregnancy, and mental health. Data were collected on qualifications, organizational affiliations, and relationships among six papers\' authors, three guest editors, and twelve peer reviewers. Two articles were found to have undisclosed conflicts of interest between authors, an editor, and multiple peer reviewers affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy and lobbying groups, indicating compromised objectivity. This lack of transparency undermines the peer review process and enables biased research and disinformation proliferation.Our study is limited by a few factors including: difficulty collecting peer reviewer data, potentially missing affiliations, and a small sample without comparisons. While this is a case study of one special issue, we do have suggestions for increasing integrity.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    难民和寻求庇护者可能会遇到与抵达前经历有关的挑战,移民后和移民安置期间的结构缺点,在参与研究时需要特别保护。目的是审查具有难民和寻求庇护者背景的人是否以及如何在国家和国际研究伦理准则中解决对特殊保护的需求。对灰色文献进行了系统的搜索。搜索产生了2187个文档,其中14个符合纳入标准。很少有准则针对弱势群体的具体道德考虑,更不用说有难民和寻求庇护者背景的人了。一项准则明确解决了难民和寻求庇护者的脆弱性。为了确保伦理委员会成员和研究人员考虑与这些团体进行研究的潜在挑战,准则可能需要补充难民和寻求庇护者特定的研究伦理框架。这样一个框架对于在研究中最佳地保护具有难民和寻求庇护者背景的人可能是必要的。
    Refugees and asylum seekers may experience challenges related to pre-arrival experiences, structural disadvantage after migration and during resettlement requiring the need for special protection when participating in research. The aim was to review if and how people with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds have had their need for special protection addressed in national and international research ethics guidelines. A systematic search of grey literature was undertaken. The search yielded 2187 documents of which fourteen met the inclusion criteria. Few guidelines addressed specific ethical considerations for vulnerable groups much less people with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds. One guideline explicitly addressed vulnerability for refugees and asylums seekers. To ensure members of ethics committees and researchers consider the potential challenges of conducting research with these groups, guidelines may need to be supplemented with a refugee and asylum seeker specific research ethics framework. Such a framework may be necessary to optimally protect people with refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds in research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    参与儿童和青少年感染艾滋病毒(CALWH)的研究对于青少年友好服务和艾滋病毒护理至关重要,研究人员需要确保这种参与是合乎道德的。我们进行了系统评价,以确定CALWH参与研究的关键伦理考虑因素。该评论的重点是在非洲国家进行的主要研究文章,这些文章研究了从事研究的CALWH的道德问题。十项研究符合纳入标准;提取了以下七个关键领域:1)参与CALWH研究的理由;2)社区参与;3)知情同意/同意;4)护理人员参与;5)对益处的看法;6)对参与风险的看法;7)保密。这些领域可以为CALWH在研究中的伦理参与提供信息。
    Research engaging children and adolescents living with HIV (CALWH) is critical for youth-friendly services and HIV care, and researchers need to ensure that such engagement is ethical. We conducted a systematic review to identify key ethical considerations for the engagement of CALWH in research. The review focused on primary research articles conducted in African countries that examined ethical issues in CALWH engaged in research. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; the following seven key domains were extracted: 1) justifications for engaging CALWH in research; 2) community involvement; 3) informed consent/assent; 4) caregiver involvement; 5) perceptions of benefits; 6) perception of the risks of involvement; and 7) confidentiality. These domains can inform the ethical engagement of CALWH in research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:YouTube已成为医疗保健信息的流行来源,到2021年,估计达到81%的成年人;美国约35%的成年人使用互联网自我诊断疾病。因此,公共卫生研究人员正在将YouTube数据纳入他们的研究中,但是使用社交媒体数据的研究伦理最佳实践指南,比如YouTube,不清楚。
    目的:本研究旨在描述使用YouTube数据实施的公共卫生研究的研究伦理方法。
    方法:我们对PubMed中的文章进行了系统回顾,Socindex,WebofScience,和PsycINFO遵循PRISMA(系统审查和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南。有资格被包括在内,研究需要在2006年1月1日至2019年10月31日之间以英文在同行评审的期刊上发表,并包括对公开的YouTube健康或公共卫生主题数据的分析;使用主要数据收集的研究,例如使用YouTube进行研究招募,干预措施,或传播评估,不包括在内。我们提取了关于用户识别信息存在的数据,机构审查委员会(IRB)审查,和知情同意程序,以及研究课题和方法论。
    结果:这篇综述包括来自88种期刊的119篇文章。研究的最常见的健康和公共卫生主题是慢性病(44/119,37%),心理健康和物质使用(26/119,21.8%),和传染病(20/119,16.8%)。大多数(82/119,68.9%)的文章没有提到道德考虑或指出该研究不符合人类参与者研究的定义(16/119,13.4%)。在寻求IRB审查的人中(15/119,12.6%),15人中有12人(80%)被确定为不符合人类参与者研究的定义,因此免于IRB审查,15人中有3人(20%)获得IRB批准。3项IRB批准的研究均未包含识别信息;伦理委员会明确告知其中一项研究不包含识别信息。只有一项研究征求了YouTube用户的知情同意。119条,33(27.7%)包含有关内容创建者或视频评论者的识别信息,其中之一试图通过不包括用户信息来匿名化直接报价。
    结论:鉴于实践中的变化,社交媒体研究需要关于研究伦理的具体指导方针,特别是在使用识别信息时匿名和寻求同意。
    背景:PROSPEROCRD42020148170;https://www.crd.约克。AC.uk/prospro/display_record.php?RecordID=148170。
    YouTube has become a popular source of health care information, reaching an estimated 81% of adults in 2021; approximately 35% of adults in the United States have used the internet to self-diagnose a condition. Public health researchers are therefore incorporating YouTube data into their research, but guidelines for best practices around research ethics using social media data, such as YouTube, are unclear.
    This study aims to describe approaches to research ethics for public health research implemented using YouTube data.
    We implemented a systematic review of articles found in PubMed, SocINDEX, Web of Science, and PsycINFO following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. To be eligible to be included, studies needed to be published in peer-reviewed journals in English between January 1, 2006, and October 31, 2019, and include analyses on publicly available YouTube data on health or public health topics; studies using primary data collection, such as using YouTube for study recruitment, interventions, or dissemination evaluations, were not included. We extracted data on the presence of user identifying information, institutional review board (IRB) review, and informed consent processes, as well as research topic and methodology.
    This review includes 119 articles from 88 journals. The most common health and public health topics studied were in the categories of chronic diseases (44/119, 37%), mental health and substance use (26/119, 21.8%), and infectious diseases (20/119, 16.8%). The majority (82/119, 68.9%) of articles made no mention of ethical considerations or stated that the study did not meet the definition of human participant research (16/119, 13.4%). Of those that sought IRB review (15/119, 12.6%), 12 out of 15 (80%) were determined to not meet the definition of human participant research and were therefore exempt from IRB review, and 3 out of 15 (20%) received IRB approval. None of the 3 IRB-approved studies contained identifying information; one was explicitly told not to include identifying information by their ethics committee. Only 1 study sought informed consent from YouTube users. Of 119 articles, 33 (27.7%) contained identifying information about content creators or video commenters, one of which attempted to anonymize direct quotes by not including user information.
    Given the variation in practice, concrete guidelines on research ethics for social media research are needed, especially around anonymizing and seeking consent when using identifying information.
    PROSPERO CRD42020148170; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=148170.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号