Human Research Ethics Committee Experiences and Views About Children's Participation in Research: Results From the MESSI Study.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-02-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-12 DOI:10.1177/15562646211048294
Stephanie Taplin, Jenny Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, Morag McArthur
{"title":"Human Research Ethics Committee Experiences and Views About Children's Participation in Research: Results From the <i>MESSI</i> Study.","authors":"Stephanie Taplin,&nbsp;Jenny Chalmers,&nbsp;Judith Brown,&nbsp;Tim Moore,&nbsp;Anne Graham,&nbsp;Morag McArthur","doi":"10.1177/15562646211048294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As part of a larger study, Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members and managers were surveyed about their decision-making and views about social research studies with child participants. Responses of 229 HREC members and 42 HREC managers are reported. While most HREC members had received ethical training, HREC training and guidelines specific to research involving children were rare. Most applications involving children had to go through a full ethical review, but few adverse events were reported to HRECs regarding the conduct of the studies. Revisions to study proposals requested by HRECs were mostly related to consent processes and age-appropriate language. One-third of HREC members said that they would approve research on any topic. Most were also concerned that the methodology was appropriate, and the risks and benefits were clearly articulated. Specific training and guidance are needed to increase HREC members' confidence to judge ethical research with children.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"17 1-2","pages":"70-83"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211048294","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

As part of a larger study, Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members and managers were surveyed about their decision-making and views about social research studies with child participants. Responses of 229 HREC members and 42 HREC managers are reported. While most HREC members had received ethical training, HREC training and guidelines specific to research involving children were rare. Most applications involving children had to go through a full ethical review, but few adverse events were reported to HRECs regarding the conduct of the studies. Revisions to study proposals requested by HRECs were mostly related to consent processes and age-appropriate language. One-third of HREC members said that they would approve research on any topic. Most were also concerned that the methodology was appropriate, and the risks and benefits were clearly articulated. Specific training and guidance are needed to increase HREC members' confidence to judge ethical research with children.

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
人类研究伦理委员会关于儿童参与研究的经验和观点:来自梅西研究的结果。
作为一项更大的研究的一部分,澳大利亚人类研究伦理委员会(HREC)的成员和管理人员接受了关于他们对儿童参与的社会研究的决策和看法的调查。报告了229名HREC成员和42名HREC管理者的反馈。虽然大多数HREC成员都接受过道德培训,但HREC针对涉及儿童的研究的培训和指导方针却很少。大多数涉及儿童的申请必须经过全面的伦理审查,但很少有不良事件报告给HRECs关于研究的进行。HRECs要求对研究提案进行修订,主要涉及同意程序和适合年龄的语言。三分之一的HREC成员表示,他们会批准任何主题的研究。大多数人还关心方法是否适当,风险和利益是否清楚地表达出来。需要具体的培训和指导,以增强HREC成员判断儿童伦理研究的信心。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics. Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan.
×
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