Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2021-07-01 Epub Date: 2021-06-25 DOI:10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8

Boris Handal, Chris Campbell, Kevin Watson, Marguerite Maher, Keagan Brewer, Anne-Marie Irwin, Marc Fellman

{"title":"Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions.","authors":"Boris Handal, Chris Campbell, Kevin Watson, Marguerite Maher, Keagan Brewer, Anne-Marie Irwin, Marc Fellman","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members' perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants' risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members' beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants' welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members' perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants' risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members' beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants' welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

人类研究伦理委员会成员:伦理审查个人看法。

本研究旨在描述人类研究伦理委员会(HREC)成员对与伦理审查相关的五个主要主题的看法，即研究的性质、伦理/道德问题、同意、参与者的风险和HREC特权问题。来自澳大利亚200多个HREC的316名HREC成员回答了一项在线问卷调查。结果表明，总体而言，HREC成员的信念是合理的，并与健全的伦理审查原则相一致。似乎有一种符合伦理/道德价值观的倾向，避免同意放弃的问题，尊重参与者的福利，以及对HREC特权的模糊感。有问题的地方是，人们倾向于过分重视定量研究方法的有效性，对智力残疾参与者的同意弃权持中立态度，最后，认为限制披露、计划欺骗或积极隐瞒的研究在道德上是不合理的。讨论了对专业发展和政策制定的影响。

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

Monash Bioethics Review ETHICS-

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

6.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary