Ethical Issues in Implementation Science: A Qualitative Interview Study of Participating Clinicians.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2024.2388537
Justin T Clapp, Naomi Zucker, Olivia K Hernandez, Ellen J Bass, Meghan B Lane-Fall
{"title":"Ethical Issues in Implementation Science: A Qualitative Interview Study of Participating Clinicians.","authors":"Justin T Clapp, Naomi Zucker, Olivia K Hernandez, Ellen J Bass, Meghan B Lane-Fall","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2388537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implementation science presents ethical issues not well addressed by traditional research ethics frameworks. There is little empirical work examining how clinicians whose work is affected by implementation studies view these issues. Accordingly, we interviewed clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study seeking to improve patient handoffs to the intensive care unit (ICU).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed semi-structured interviews with 32 clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study aiming to improve patient handoffs from the operating room to the ICU. We analyzed the interviews using an iterative coding process following a conventional content analysis approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Clinicians' greatest concern about involvement was possible damage to interpersonal relations with more senior clinicians. They were divided about whether informed consent from clinicians was necessary but were satisfied with the study's approach of sending out mass communications about the study. They did not think opting out of the implementation portion of the study was feasible but saw this inability to opt out as unproblematic because they equated the study with routine quality improvement. Those clinicians who helped launch the study at their sites recounted several different ways of doing so beyond simply facilitating access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The risks that clinicians identified stemmed more from their general status as employees than their specific work as clinicians. Implementation researchers should be attuned to the ethical ramifications of involving employees of varying ranks. Implementation researchers using hybrid designs should also be sensitive to the possibility that practitioners affected by a study will equate it with quality improvement and overlook its research component. Finally, the interactions that go into facilitating an implementation study are more various than the \"gatekeeping\" typically discussed by research ethicists. More research is needed on the ethics of the myriad interactions that are involved in making implementation studies happen.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2388537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implementation science presents ethical issues not well addressed by traditional research ethics frameworks. There is little empirical work examining how clinicians whose work is affected by implementation studies view these issues. Accordingly, we interviewed clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study seeking to improve patient handoffs to the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods: We performed semi-structured interviews with 32 clinicians working at sites participating in an implementation study aiming to improve patient handoffs from the operating room to the ICU. We analyzed the interviews using an iterative coding process following a conventional content analysis approach.

Results: Clinicians' greatest concern about involvement was possible damage to interpersonal relations with more senior clinicians. They were divided about whether informed consent from clinicians was necessary but were satisfied with the study's approach of sending out mass communications about the study. They did not think opting out of the implementation portion of the study was feasible but saw this inability to opt out as unproblematic because they equated the study with routine quality improvement. Those clinicians who helped launch the study at their sites recounted several different ways of doing so beyond simply facilitating access.

Conclusions: The risks that clinicians identified stemmed more from their general status as employees than their specific work as clinicians. Implementation researchers should be attuned to the ethical ramifications of involving employees of varying ranks. Implementation researchers using hybrid designs should also be sensitive to the possibility that practitioners affected by a study will equate it with quality improvement and overlook its research component. Finally, the interactions that go into facilitating an implementation study are more various than the "gatekeeping" typically discussed by research ethicists. More research is needed on the ethics of the myriad interactions that are involved in making implementation studies happen.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实施科学中的伦理问题:对参与临床医生的定性访谈研究》。
背景:实施科学提出了传统研究伦理框架无法很好解决的伦理问题。很少有实证研究探讨工作受到实施研究影响的临床医生是如何看待这些问题的。因此,我们对参与一项旨在改善重症监护室(ICU)病人交接的实施研究的临床医生进行了访谈:我们对参与一项旨在改善患者从手术室到重症监护室的交接的实施研究的 32 名临床医生进行了半结构化访谈。我们按照传统的内容分析方法,使用迭代编码过程对访谈进行了分析:结果:临床医生对参与的最大担忧是可能会破坏与资历较深临床医生的人际关系。他们对是否有必要获得临床医生的知情同意意见不一,但对研究采取的群发研究信息的方式表示满意。他们认为选择退出研究的实施部分是不可行的,但认为无法选择退出并不是问题,因为他们将该研究等同于常规的质量改进。那些帮助其所在医院启动研究的临床医生讲述了几种不同的方式,而不仅仅是为患者提供便利:临床医生发现的风险更多来自于他们作为雇员的一般身份,而不是他们作为临床医生的具体工作。实施研究人员应注意让不同级别的员工参与进来的伦理后果。采用混合设计的实施研究人员还应注意,受研究影响的从业人员可能会将研究等同于质量改进,而忽视研究的内容。最后,与研究伦理学家通常讨论的 "把关 "相比,促进实施研究的互动更为多样。我们需要对开展实施研究过程中的各种互动进行更多的伦理研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1