scholarly journals Ethics Review Concerns of Canada's Distance Researchers

2011 ◽  
pp. 230-248
Author(s):  
Patrick J. Fahy
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Privacy And Confidentiality

Ethics review of research involving humans is intended to protect human dignity by balancing harms and benefits. The foci and methods used in reviews vary nationally, but tend, as in Canada, to address core principles including free and informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, inclusiveness and fairness, and the rights of dependent subjects. Under examination in relation to the policy that governs research ethics in Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS, 2005), these principles admit numerous exceptions, a fact that, as shown by a study reported here, is better understood by those actually engaged in research than those who are not. The implications of these findings, and the specific priorities of non- Canadian researchers (especially those in developing nations), are described and discussed.

Uneasy Relations: Crime Ethnographies and Research Ethics

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Kevin D. Haggerty
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

This chapter accentuates some of the reasons why crime ethnographies can face difficulties with the ethics review process, including prominent issues relating to informed consent, risk and harm, anonymity, and criminal behavior. Universities in most Western countries have established research ethics boards over the past twenty years responsible for assessing the ethical conduct of research. Qualitative research can fit poorly into the largely positivist ethics framework, resulting in an often-frustrating situation for ethnographers seeking to move ahead with their research. One paradox of this situation is that the ethics process itself seems poised to give rise to a subset of academic deviants in the form of crime ethnographers who may find that they are obliged to circumvent or disregard some formal ethical strictures in order to engage in ethnographic practices that otherwise seem uncontroversial or even innocuous.

scholarly journals Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials

BMJ ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 342 (may11 1) ◽  
pp. d2496-d2496 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Taljaard ◽  
A. D. McRae ◽  
C. Weijer ◽  
C. Bennett ◽  
S. Dixon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Cluster Randomised Trials ◽  
Cluster Randomised

scholarly journals Doing Research with Vulnerable Populations: The Case of Intravenous Drug Users

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blake Murdoch ◽  
Timothy Caulfield
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Drug Users ◽  
Main Concern ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Canadian Context ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Vulnerable Persons

This review article considers ethical concerns when doing research on potentially vulnerable people who inject drugs (PWID) in a Canadian context. TheTri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humansbroadly addresses many of the traditional ethical principles of research on vulnerable persons, but does so at the cost of clarity and precision. Vulnerability is contextual rather than absolute. When doing research with vulnerable persons, informed consent should be obtained from an independent person, and comprehension should be checked using questioning. Participants can be vulnerable due to many factors, including addiction, chronic disease, socioeconomic and racial status, and lack of education. The ability of PWID to give informed consent can be compromised by undue influence or intoxication, but existing research shows that neither the mode nor the magnitude of compensation has a significant effect on new rates of drug use. Compensation can also help dispel the therapeutic misconception. Intoxication rather than undue influence is the main concern when obtaining informed consent from PWID. The stigmatization of PWID as incapable of consent should be avoided. Paternalistic exclusion from research can harm PWID and exacerbate their vulnerability by reducing our knowledge of and ability to specifically treat them. As such, we must collect better data about the effects of research ethics policies. Studies to this effect should focus on experiences, perspectives and needs of potentially vulnerable research participants. Research ethics boards in Canada should adopt an evidence-based approach when applying discretionary power to proposals for clinical research.

Inadequacy of ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: Results from a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Karla Hemming ◽  
Lena Shah ◽  
Bruno Giraudeau ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trials ◽  
Stepped Wedge ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Stepped Wedge Trials ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Background/aims The use of the stepped wedge cluster randomized design is rapidly increasing. This design is commonly used to evaluate health policy and service delivery interventions. Stepped wedge cluster randomized trials have unique characteristics that complicate their ethical interpretation. The 2012 Ottawa Statement provides comprehensive guidance on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials, and the 2010 CONSORT extension for cluster randomized trials provides guidelines for reporting. Our aims were to assess the adequacy of the ethical conduct and reporting of stepped wedge trials to date, focusing on research ethics review and informed consent. Methods We conducted a systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials in health research published up to 2014 in English language journals. We extracted details of study intervention and data collection procedures, as well as reporting of research ethics review and informed consent. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each trial; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. We identified the presence of any research participants at the cluster level and the individual level. We assessed ethical conduct by tabulating reporting of research ethics review and informed consent against the presence of research participants. Results Of 32 identified stepped wedge trials, only 24 (75%) reported review by a research ethics committee, and only 16 (50%) reported informed consent from any research participants—yet, all trials included research participants at some level. In the subgroup of 20 trials with research participants at cluster level, only 4 (20%) reported informed consent from such participants; in 26 trials with individual-level research participants, only 15 (58%) reported their informed consent. Interventions (regardless of whether targeting cluster- or individual-level participants) were delivered at the group level in more than two-thirds of trials; nine trials (28%) had no identifiable data collected from any research participants. Overall, only three trials (9%) indicated that a waiver of consent had been granted by a research ethics committee. When considering the combined requirement of research ethics review and informed consent (or a waiver), only one in three studies were compliant. Conclusion The ethical conduct and reporting of key ethical protections in stepped wedge trials, namely, research ethics review and informed consent, are inadequate. We recommend that stepped wedge trials be classified as research and reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee. We also recommend that researchers appropriately identify research participants (which may include health professionals), seek informed consent or appeal to an ethics committee for a waiver of consent, and include explicit details of research ethics approval and informed consent in the trial report.

Ethics in Social Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Bruce
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Medical Interventions ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Social Researcher ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
The Social ◽  
Collection Phase

It is right that social researchers consider the ethical implications of their work, but discussion of research ethics has been distorted by the primacy of the ‘informed consent’ model for policing medical interventions. It is remarkably rare for the data collection phase of social research to be in any sense harmful, and in most cases seeking consent from, say, members of a church congregation would disrupt the naturally occurring phenomena we wish to study. More relevant is the way we report our research. It is in the disparity between how people would like to see themselves described and explained and how the social researcher describes and explains them that we find the greatest potential for ill-feeling, and even here it is slight.

scholarly journals Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea

SAGE Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824402091454
Author(s):  
Sukhee Ahn ◽  
Geum Hee Jeong ◽  
Hye Sook Shin ◽  
Jeung-Im Kim ◽  
Yunmi Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Nursing Faculty ◽  
Institutional Environment ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Training Needs ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Intensive Training ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Difficulty Index

This study, conducted in the Republic of Korea, analyzed nursing faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to their characteristics and the institutional environment. A survey was conducted from April 24 to July 23, 2017. The participants were 210 nursing professors from 57 universities in Korea. The survey questionnaire gathered information on participants’ characteristics, their knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics, and their perceived training needs. A relatively low difficulty index was found for knowledge items dealing with conflicts of interest (0.66), copyright (0.65), and plagiarism and duplicate publications (0.17) than for the other six items. Of the 12 items assessing attitudes toward research ethics, use of a plagiarism-checking program and reviewing manuscripts from members of one’s own research group had the lowest scores. The knowledge level of participants whose institutions provided a plagiarism-checking program was higher than those whose institutions did not. Former group also showed better attitudes toward research ethics. High-priority training needs were obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, writing informed consent forms, and obtaining informed consent for studies on children and pregnant women. A more intensive training program for nursing faculty is required on specific topics, including conflicts of interest, copyright, plagiarism, duplicate publications, IRB approval, and informed consent. Furthermore, all nursing institutions in Korea should provide a plagiarism-checking program to faculty members.

A Novel Framework for Reflecting on the Functioning of Research Ethics Review Panels

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Macduff ◽  
Andrew McKie ◽  
Sheelagh Martindale ◽  
Anne Marie Rennie ◽  
Bernice West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Nursing Education ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

In the past decade structures and processes for the ethical review of UK health care research have undergone rapid change. Although this has focused users' attention on the functioning of review committees, it remains rare to read a substantive view from the inside. This article presents details of processes and findings resulting from a novel structured reflective exercise undertaken by a newly formed research ethics review panel in a university school of nursing and midwifery. By adopting and adapting some of the knowledge to be found in the art and science of malt whisky tasting, a framework for critical reflection is presented and applied. This enables analysis of the main contemporary issues for a review panel that is primarily concerned with research into nursing education and practice. In addition to structuring the panel's own literary narrative, the framework also generates useful visual representation for further reflection. Both the analysis of issues and the framework itself are presented as of potential value to all nurses, health care professionals and educationalists with an interest in ethical review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document