scholarly journals Knowledge, attitude and practice of research ethics among medical faculty in a teaching hospital

Author(s):  
Swetha Munoli ◽  
Niveditha G. ◽  
Deepthi R.

Background: To assess the knowledge, attitudes and practice of medical faculty regarding research ethics and research ethics committees (RECs).Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted in ESIC medical colleges in Bangalore among faculty using a validated questionnaire. Questions were designed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practice of medical faculty regarding research ethics and research ethics committees. Statistical analysis was done using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests.Results: Majority (76%) of faculty had not undergone training in research ethics. Less than half of the participants answered correctly to a question on guidelines in research ethics, 60% responded correctly to question on research involving children. Majority responded correctly to question on role of a research ethics committee and confidentiality, informed consent and to question on composition of Institutional Ethics Committee. 68% taught that ethical review of research by an ethics committee would delay research. >90% were favourable towards research ethics training. Faculty held attitudes regarding certain research ethics practices that were not optimal, 96% believed that it is okay to fabricate data, 68% taught that if no surrogate is available to give informed consent for vulnerable groups, they could still be included.Conclusions: We conclude that among the medical faculties participating in our study, there is acceptance of RECs and training in research ethics, while there are knowledge gaps in research ethics guidelines, research involving children. There is need to train researchers and students to make them aware about various aspects of research.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diaa Marzouk ◽  
Iman Sharawy ◽  
Isabelle Nakhla ◽  
Mostafa El Hodhod ◽  
Hoda Gadallah ◽  
...  

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an overwhelming increase in research studies submitted to research ethics committees (RECs) presenting many ethical challenges. This article aims to report the challenges encountered during review of COVID-19 research and the experience of the Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University Research Ethics Committee (FMASU REC). From April 10, 2020, until October 13, 2020, the FMASU REC reviewed 98 COVID-19 research protocols. This article addressed the question of how to face an overwhelming amount of research submitted to the REC while applying the required ethical principles. Ethical challenges included a new accelerated mode of review, online meetings, balance of risks vs. benefits, measures to mitigate risks, co-enrolment in different studies, protection of a vulnerable COVID-19 population, accelerated decisions, online research, how to handle informed consent during the pandemic, and justification of placebo arm.


2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 101-102
Author(s):  
Frank Wells

This paper presents a review, conducted by the ethics working party of the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, of the structures and functions of research ethics committees across the member states of the EU. The findings demonstrate widespread differences, and further working groups have been established to develop thinking across Europe, in respect of the training of REC members, ethics committee quality assurance and the involvement of vulnerable subjects in research. In practical terms the differences do not matter, but they should be recognized. The review itself is considered a dynamic document and will be updated every six months.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Handal ◽  
Chris Campbell ◽  
Kevin Watson ◽  
Marguerite Maher ◽  
Keagan Brewer ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mutshidzi A. Mulondo ◽  
Joyce M. Tsoka-Gwegweni ◽  
Puleng LenkaBula ◽  
Perpetual Chikobvu

Most capacity development efforts for research ethics committees focus on committee members and little on ethics administrators. Increasing studies mandate the focus on administrators’ capacity development needs to enable adequate and effective committee support. This study investigated current responsibilities, training requirements, and administrator role needs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among administrators from 62 National Health Research Ethics Council-registered research ethics committees in South Africa. In total, 36 administrators completed the questionnaire. Results show that, in addition to administration, they perform managerial, review process and guidance-advisory tasks. Nearly 49% indicated only having received informal research ethics-related training, not targeted formal training, with 81% of the informal training being through workshops. Research ethics administrators’ responsibilities have evolved to complex tasks requiring targeted capacity development efforts.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e001942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt ◽  
Verina Wild ◽  
Edwine Barasa ◽  
Dorcas Kamuya ◽  
Lucy Gilson ◽  
...  

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is increasingly being funded and conducted worldwide. There are currently no specific guidelines or criteria for the ethical review and conduct of HPSR. Academic debates on HPSR ethics in the scholarly literature can inform the development of guidelines. Yet there is a deficiency of academic bioethics work relating to justice in HPSR. This gap is especially problematic for a field like HPSR, which can entail studies that intervene in ways affecting the social and health system delivery structures of society. In this paper, we call for interpreting the principle of justice in a more expansive way in developing and reviewing HPSR studies (relative to biomedical research). The principle requires advancing health equity and social justice at population or systems levels. Drawing on the rich justice literature from political philosophy and public health ethics, we propose a set of essential justice considerations to uphold this principle. These considerations are relevant for research funders, researchers, research ethics committees, policymakers, community organisations and others who are active in the HPSR field.


2019 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 141-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saddam Al Demour ◽  
Karem H Alzoubi ◽  
Anas Alabsi ◽  
Sadam Al Abdallat ◽  
Ashraf Alzayed

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tehseen Noorani ◽  
Andrew Charlesworth ◽  
Alison Kite ◽  
Morag McDermont

This article illustrates how medicalized epistemologies and methodologies significantly influence the institutional ethical review processes applied to sociolegal research in law schools. It argues this development has elevated particular renderings of mental distress and objectivity to universal definitions, potentially placing a straitjacket on methodological innovation. The authors use two case studies from their experiences as researchers in a UK Law School, alongside a small-scale survey of sociolegal researchers in other UK law schools, to illustrate the problems that can arise in securing ethical approval for sociolegal research, in particular with participatory research designs that mobilize ideas of mental distress and objectivity not premised on conventional medical understandings. The article develops key proposals that the authors feel merit further inquiry. First, there should be a comprehensive evaluation of how the jurisdiction of ethical review for sociolegal research is established. Second, sociolegal scholarship can contribute to debates concerning the discursive, material and procedural constitution of institutional ethics approval processes. Finally, we might rethink the nature of, and relationship between, university-based research ethics committees and National Health Service research ethics committees, by placing both within wider ecologies of capacities for ethical decision-making.


2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunbrith Peterson ◽  
Anders Wallin

The rapid advances in biomedical sciences have induced special moral and ethical attitudes, which ought to be taken into account. One of the most essential issues is the principles for participation in research of subjects with reduced decision-making capacity. We conducted a questionnaire survey among members of the research ethics committees in Sweden to find out their attitudes to a range of ethical issues related to research on subjects with Alzheimer's disease. One hundred thirty-six of those approached responded (66%), and 117 of the responses (56%) were considered substantially complete. There were 16 questions with fixed reply alternatives. Some central questions concerned the informed consent process. With a few exceptions, there were no significant differences in attitudes between the experts and laypersons, between persons of different ages, and between men and women. However, women and laypersons were in general keener to preserve the patient's integrity and the experts were more willing than the laypersons to allow participation of subjects with dementia in placebo-controlled trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document