Researchers’ self-reported adherence to ethical principles in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research and views on improving conduct: a mixed methods study

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Medical Journal of Australia Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.5694/mja2.52570
Kade Booth, Jamie Bryant, Felicity Collis, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Breanne Hobden, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Raymond W Lovett, Michelle Kennedy
{"title":"Researchers’ self-reported adherence to ethical principles in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research and views on improving conduct: a mixed methods study","authors":"Kade Booth,&nbsp;Jamie Bryant,&nbsp;Felicity Collis,&nbsp;Catherine Chamberlain,&nbsp;Jaquelyne Hughes,&nbsp;Breanne Hobden,&nbsp;Kalinda E Griffiths,&nbsp;Mark Wenitong,&nbsp;Peter O'Mara,&nbsp;Alex Brown,&nbsp;Sandra J Eades,&nbsp;Kelvin M Kong,&nbsp;Raymond W Lovett,&nbsp;Michelle Kennedy","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To examine researchers’ reports of adherence to ethical principles in their most recent research project, including factors associated with higher self-reported adherence, and perceptions of how research conduct could be improved.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study design</h3>\n \n <p>Online cross-sectional survey.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\n \n <p>Researchers who had conducted any health or medical research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Researchers rated their adherence to 15 ethical principles extracted from ethical guidelines in their most recent research project on a 5-point Likert scale (poor to excellent), and reported what they believe is needed to improve the conduct of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>391 researchers completed the survey. Those with &gt; 10 years’ experience in the field were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to all 15 key ethical principles compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience. Compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience, those with 6–10 years’ experience were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to: engaging community in identifying research priorities (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23–3.40]); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.32–3.55); and engaging community in research implementation (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.25–3.54). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to the following principles than non-Indigenous participants: engaging community in identifying research priorities (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.16–3.10); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30–3.61); engaging community in research implementation (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.14–3.20); embedding Aboriginal governance, advisory and decision making on the project (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.26–3.50); embedding opportunities in the research for capacity building for communities (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.04–2.77); and enacting Indigenous data sovereignty and governance principles (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02–2.70). Open-ended responses indicated research conduct could be improved by recognition of community as experts, genuine partnerships and engagement, and pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and support to strengthen the field.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Structural and individual change is required to accommodate community priority setting, governance, consultation, leadership and translation in the conduct of ethical Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research. Such changes should be flexible and responsive to calls made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and communities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 S2","pages":"S16-S24"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52570","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52570","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To examine researchers’ reports of adherence to ethical principles in their most recent research project, including factors associated with higher self-reported adherence, and perceptions of how research conduct could be improved.

Study design

Online cross-sectional survey.

Setting, participants

Researchers who had conducted any health or medical research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.

Main outcome measures

Researchers rated their adherence to 15 ethical principles extracted from ethical guidelines in their most recent research project on a 5-point Likert scale (poor to excellent), and reported what they believe is needed to improve the conduct of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.

Results

391 researchers completed the survey. Those with > 10 years’ experience in the field were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to all 15 key ethical principles compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience. Compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience, those with 6–10 years’ experience were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to: engaging community in identifying research priorities (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23–3.40]); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.32–3.55); and engaging community in research implementation (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.25–3.54). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to the following principles than non-Indigenous participants: engaging community in identifying research priorities (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.16–3.10); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30–3.61); engaging community in research implementation (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.14–3.20); embedding Aboriginal governance, advisory and decision making on the project (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.26–3.50); embedding opportunities in the research for capacity building for communities (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.04–2.77); and enacting Indigenous data sovereignty and governance principles (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02–2.70). Open-ended responses indicated research conduct could be improved by recognition of community as experts, genuine partnerships and engagement, and pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and support to strengthen the field.

Conclusion

Structural and individual change is required to accommodate community priority setting, governance, consultation, leadership and translation in the conduct of ethical Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research. Such changes should be flexible and responsive to calls made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and communities.

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
研究人员自我报告在土著和托雷斯海峡岛民健康和医学研究中遵守伦理原则的情况以及对改进行为的看法:一项混合方法研究。
目的:检查研究人员在其最近的研究项目中遵守道德原则的报告,包括与较高的自我报告遵守相关的因素,以及对如何改进研究行为的看法。研究设计:在线横断面调查。环境、参与者:进行过包括土著和托雷斯海峡岛民或其数据的任何健康或医学研究的研究人员。主要结果测量:研究人员对他们在最近的研究项目中从道德准则中提取的15项道德原则进行了5分李克特评分(差到优秀),并报告了他们认为需要改善土著和托雷斯海峡岛民健康和医学研究的行为。结果:391名研究人员完成了调查。与经验≤5年的人相比,在该领域工作10年以上的人更有可能自我报告遵守所有15项关键道德原则。与≤5年工作经验的人相比,6-10年工作经验的人更有可能自我报告坚持:参与社区确定研究重点(优势比[OR], 2.05;[95%可信区间(CI), 1.23-3.40]);让社区参与发展研究问题(OR, 2.16;95% ci, 1.32-3.55);让社区参与研究实施(OR, 2.10;95% ci, 1.25-3.54)。土著和托雷斯海峡岛民参与者比非土著参与者更有可能自我报告遵守以下原则:让社区参与确定研究重点(OR, 1.90;95% ci, 1.16-3.10);让社区参与发展研究问题(OR, 2.16;95% ci, 1.30-3.61);让社区参与研究实施(OR, 1.92;95% ci, 1.14-3.20);将原住民治理、咨询和决策纳入项目(OR, 2.10;95% ci, 1.26-3.50);在社区能力建设研究中嵌入机会(OR, 1.70;95% ci, 1.04-2.77);颁布土著数据主权和治理原则(OR, 1.67;95% ci, 1.02-2.70)。开放式答复表明,可以通过承认社区作为专家、真正的伙伴关系和参与、土著和托雷斯海峡岛民研究人员的途径以及加强该领域的支持来改善研究行为。结论:需要进行结构和个人变革,以便在进行符合伦理的土著和托雷斯海峡岛民健康和医学研究时适应社区确定优先事项、治理、协商、领导和翻译。这种改变应该是灵活的,并应响应土著和托雷斯海峡岛民研究人员和社区的呼吁。
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
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
期刊最新文献
Data for Equity: Can Linked Administrative Data Inform Pathways to More Equitable Child Health? A Diagnostic Headache. Victorian Public Hospitals Go 100% Renewable: Now Let's Replace Gas and Embrace Reusable Equipment. Antidepressant Prescribing in Australian Primary Care: Time to Reevaluate. Ngalaiya Boorai Gabara Budbut: A Qualitative Study With Primary Care Providers to Understand Perceived Needs, Enablers, Barriers and Opportunities to Strengthen Care.
×
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:604180095
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