Analysing and optimising Informed Consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers

IF 1 Q2 LINGUISTICS AILA Review Pub Date : 2021-09-09 DOI:10.1075/aila.20007.mat
I. Matic, Gianni De Nardi, Felix Steiner
{"title":"Analysing and optimising Informed Consent in cooperation with ethics committees and medical researchers","authors":"I. Matic, Gianni De Nardi, Felix Steiner","doi":"10.1075/aila.20007.mat","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Medical researchers are ethically and legally required to inform participants and get written permission before\n enrolling them into a human research project (Informed Consent). Accordingly, information and consent represent a\n complex procedure, and the participant concerned “must receive comprehensible oral and written information” (Swiss legislation:\n Human Research Act (HRA) Art. 16). A triangle of stakeholders is involved in the procedure: ethics committees that review and\n approve research projects and Informed Consent (IC) documents, medical researchers who produce the documents and\n discuss enrolment with patients, and patients who have to be informed comprehensibly. From a linguistic point of view, the\n question arises as to which perceptions of comprehensibility form the basis of the IC process and how shared language can be\n established considering the complex relationship between these stakeholders. This contribution presents findings from two\n perspectives (ethics committees and researchers) while considering the needs of all three stakeholders. Firstly, the\n conceptualisation of comprehensibility among three ethic committees is presented, and steps toward harmonisation are outlined.\n Secondly, limitations of how researchers conduct oral IC information are analysed, and the measures that were implemented to\n improve patient information are discussed. A transdisciplinary approach is key in establishing these solutions because they do not\n stem from linguistic analysis alone but have been developed in close collaboration with members of ethics committees and medical\n researchers. Thus, the project shows how the expertise of applied linguistics in cooperation with practitioners can deliver an\n important impact in both academic analysis and optimisation of professional procedures.","PeriodicalId":45044,"journal":{"name":"AILA Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AILA Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.20007.mat","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medical researchers are ethically and legally required to inform participants and get written permission before enrolling them into a human research project (Informed Consent). Accordingly, information and consent represent a complex procedure, and the participant concerned “must receive comprehensible oral and written information” (Swiss legislation: Human Research Act (HRA) Art. 16). A triangle of stakeholders is involved in the procedure: ethics committees that review and approve research projects and Informed Consent (IC) documents, medical researchers who produce the documents and discuss enrolment with patients, and patients who have to be informed comprehensibly. From a linguistic point of view, the question arises as to which perceptions of comprehensibility form the basis of the IC process and how shared language can be established considering the complex relationship between these stakeholders. This contribution presents findings from two perspectives (ethics committees and researchers) while considering the needs of all three stakeholders. Firstly, the conceptualisation of comprehensibility among three ethic committees is presented, and steps toward harmonisation are outlined. Secondly, limitations of how researchers conduct oral IC information are analysed, and the measures that were implemented to improve patient information are discussed. A transdisciplinary approach is key in establishing these solutions because they do not stem from linguistic analysis alone but have been developed in close collaboration with members of ethics committees and medical researchers. Thus, the project shows how the expertise of applied linguistics in cooperation with practitioners can deliver an important impact in both academic analysis and optimisation of professional procedures.
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
与伦理委员会和医学研究人员合作分析和优化知情同意书
从道德上和法律上讲,医学研究人员在将参与者纳入人体研究项目之前必须通知参与者并获得书面许可(知情同意)。因此,信息和同意是一个复杂的程序,有关参与者“必须接受可理解的口头和书面信息”(瑞士立法:人类研究法第16条)。这一程序涉及一个三角形的利益攸关方:审查和批准研究项目和知情同意文件的伦理委员会、制作文件并与患者讨论入组问题的医学研究人员以及必须全面告知患者的患者。从语言学的角度来看,出现的问题是,可理解性的感知构成了集成过程的基础,以及考虑到这些利益相关者之间的复杂关系,如何建立共享语言。这篇文章从两个角度(伦理委员会和研究人员)提出了研究结果,同时考虑了所有三个利益相关者的需求。首先,提出了三个伦理委员会之间可理解性的概念,并概述了协调的步骤。其次,分析了研究人员如何进行口服IC信息的局限性,并讨论了改善患者信息的措施。跨学科方法是建立这些解决方案的关键,因为它们不仅源于语言分析,而且是与伦理委员会成员和医学研究人员密切合作制定的。因此,该项目展示了应用语言学的专业知识如何与实践者合作,在学术分析和专业程序优化方面产生重要影响。
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
AILA Review
AILA Review LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: AILA Review is a refereed publication of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, an international federation of national associations for applied linguistics. All volumes are guest edited. As of volume 16, 2003, AILA Review is published with John Benjamins. This journal is peer reviewed and indexed in: Scopus
期刊最新文献
Analysing the explicit and implicit semantic structure of the Iljas Esenberlin novel trilogy “Nomads” ASR-based system for promoting pronunciation Chinese Russian language teachers’ agency in response to the New Liberal Arts policy Processing and appreciation of literary metaphors in English as a foreign language Unraveling the psychological impact of spatial cybertext environments on speech intent
×
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