Ethical Considerations of the Researcher and Institutional Review Board on Disaster Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-98
Author(s):  
Sujung Yoo ◽  
Eunae Kim
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-188
Author(s):  
You Sun Kim ◽  
Dong Soo Han

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 32021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin K. Thayer ◽  
Daniel Rathkey ◽  
Marissa Fuqua Miller ◽  
Ryan Palmer ◽  
George C. Mejicano ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M Smith Slep ◽  
Richard E Heyman ◽  
Michael F Lorber ◽  
David J Linkh

Abstract Introduction We evaluated the effectiveness of New Orientation for Reducing Threats to Health from Secretive-problems That Affect Readiness (NORTH STAR), a community assessment, planning, and action framework to reduce the prevalence of suicidality, substance problems, intimate partner violence, and child abuse. Materials and Methods One-third of U.S. Air Force bases worldwide were randomly assigned to NORTH STAR (n = 12) or an assessment-and-feedback-only condition (n = 12). Two Air Force-wide, cross-sectional, anonymous, web-based surveys were conducted of randomly selected samples assessing risk/protective factors and outcomes. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at the investigators’ university and by the institutional review board at Fort Detrick. Results NORTH STAR, relative to control, bases experienced a 33% absolute risk reduction in hazardous drinking rates and cumulative risk, although, given the small number of bases, these effects were not statistically significant. Conclusions Given its relatively low cost, use of empirically supported light-touch interventions, and emphasis on sustainability with existing resources, NORTH STAR may be a useful system for prevention of a range of adult behavioral health problems that are difficult to impact.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110229
Author(s):  
Mostafa Abohelwa ◽  
Mohamed Elmassry ◽  
John Abdelmalek ◽  
Drew Payne ◽  
Kenneth Nugent

Background Coronavirus-2 (COVID-19) has caused a worldwide pandemic since December 2019. Since then, clinical trials with vaccines have been started and completed, and at present, 3 COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in the United States. Healthcare providers were among the first to get vaccinated, but the precise attitudes of healthcare workers toward vaccination are uncertain. Objective To understand residents and fellows’ attitudes toward vaccination and record any side effects after vaccination. Methods We conducted an anonymous survey that was open from 3-1-2021 to 3-12-2021 using distribution lists from the Graduate Medical Education office on the Lubbock campus of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center after getting approval from the Institutional Review Board (L21-088). Results Eighty-one residents and fellows (26.6% out of 304) responded to our survey. Among those who responded, 63 (77.8 %) were between 25 and 35 years old, and 41 (50.6%) were males. Seventy-seven (95.1%) received the vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech), 78 (96.3%) reported that they supported vaccination, and 3 (3.7%) reported that they did not want vaccination. Eight members (9.8%) had tested positive for COVID-19 infection before vaccination, but only 1 (1.23%) had tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. All residents and fellows reported side effects after the vaccination, including pain at the injection site (77; 100%), local redness (9; 11.6%), local swelling (13; 16.8%), fever (25; 32.5%), fatigue (25; 32.5%), chills (34; 44.1 %), headache (38; 49.4%). Conclusions Most medical trainees have a high interest in COVID-19 vaccination; however, a few reported that they did not want vaccination.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document