Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-07-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-10 DOI:10.1177/15562646221076764
Astrid Berner-Rodoreda, Shannon McMahon, Nir Eyal, Puspita Hossain, Atonu Rabbani, Mrittika Barua, Malabika Sarker, Emmy Metta, Elia Mmbaga, Melkizedeck Leshabari, Daniel Wikler, Till Bärnighausen
{"title":"Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions.","authors":"Astrid Berner-Rodoreda, Shannon McMahon, Nir Eyal, Puspita Hossain, Atonu Rabbani, Mrittika Barua, Malabika Sarker, Emmy Metta, Elia Mmbaga, Melkizedeck Leshabari, Daniel Wikler, Till Bärnighausen","doi":"10.1177/15562646221076764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individual informed consent is a central requirement for clinical research on human subjects, yet whether and how consent requirements should apply to health policy experiments (HPEs) remains unclear. HPEs test and evaluate public health policies prior to implementation. We interviewed 58 health experts in Tanzania, Bangladesh and Germany on informed consent requirements for HPEs. Health experts across all countries favored a strong evidence base, prior information to the affected populations, and individual consent for 'risky' HPEs. Differences pertained to individual risk perception, how and when consent by group representatives should be obtained and whether HPEs could be treated as health policies. The study adds to representative consent options for HPEs, yet shows that more research is needed in this field - particularly in the present Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the need for HPEs nationally and globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":"346-361"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9136368/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221076764","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individual informed consent is a central requirement for clinical research on human subjects, yet whether and how consent requirements should apply to health policy experiments (HPEs) remains unclear. HPEs test and evaluate public health policies prior to implementation. We interviewed 58 health experts in Tanzania, Bangladesh and Germany on informed consent requirements for HPEs. Health experts across all countries favored a strong evidence base, prior information to the affected populations, and individual consent for 'risky' HPEs. Differences pertained to individual risk perception, how and when consent by group representatives should be obtained and whether HPEs could be treated as health policies. The study adds to representative consent options for HPEs, yet shows that more research is needed in this field - particularly in the present Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the need for HPEs nationally and globally.

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
检测健康政策的同意要求:专家意见的洲际比较
个人知情同意是人类受试者临床研究的核心要求,但同意要求是否以及如何适用于卫生政策实验仍不清楚。HPE在实施之前测试和评估公共卫生政策。我们采访了坦桑尼亚、孟加拉国和德国的58位卫生专家,了解HPE的知情同意要求。所有国家的卫生专家都支持建立强有力的证据基础,向受影响人群提供事先信息,并对“危险”的高氟氯烃给予个人同意。差异涉及个人风险认知、应如何以及何时获得团体代表的同意,以及是否可以将HPE视为健康政策。该研究增加了HPE的代表性同意选择,但表明该领域需要更多的研究,尤其是在当前新冠肺炎大流行中,这突出了全国和全球对HPE的需求。
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
Joint Editorial: Informed Consent and AI Transcription of Qualitative Data. An Example of a Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Türkiye: Types of Studies Analysed, Their Phases and Investigators. Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members: Comment. Perceptions of the Research Integrity Climate in Egyptian Universities: A Survey Among Academic Researchers. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
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