Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics最新文献

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1^st January 2020 to 20^th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.

Little is known about why people with disability choose to take part in disability research and what their experience is like. Knowledge of this may help researchers and research ethics committees improve the empowered and ethical participation of people with disability in disability, healthcare, and human service focussed research. This cross-sectional mixed-methods study explored the perspectives and experiences of a group of Australian adults with disability regarding their involvement in research. Online surveys (N = 29) and follow-up interviews (N = 15) were conducted. The study found the decision to participate was a complex appraisal of benefit to self and others, research relevance, value, comfort, convenience, safety and risk. The attitudes and behaviours of researchers in cultivating trust by adopting an empathic approach to the conduct of disability research appear to be an important aspect of participant experience. Research ethics committees may benefit from knowledge of the 'microethical' moments that occur in such research.

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims-protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented-can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups.

Recognition that structural factors influence participation decisions and have potential to coerce participation, emerged relatively recently in research ethics literature. Empirical evidence to elucidate the nature of "structural" coercion and influence is needed to optimise respect for autonomy through voluntary informed consent. We present findings from ethnographic data about community co-researchers' experiences designing and implementing demographic and health survey consent procedures in participatory health research in Eswatini. Informed by Bourdieu's sociological theory of multiple types of capital/power, our findings detail structural influences on research participation decisions, highlight the inherently power-laden dynamics of consent interactions, and suggest that to be optimally ethical, research ethics principles and practices should consider and account for structural power dynamics.

Background: Research integrity has obtained much attention in research communities, but also in the general public. To improve research integrity is difficult as it involves complex systems of knowledge, attitudes, and practices. The objective of this study is to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of cohorts of PhD candidates at one faculty (of medicine) over time and compare this to finished PhDs of the same cohorts. Material and method: Researchers (n  =  186) awarded the degree PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 were invited to answer a questionnaire about knowledge, attitudes and actions related to scientific dishonesty. 94 responded (50.5%). The results were compared with results among first-year PhD candidates who responded to the same questionnaire during 2010-20 (n  =  536) and to those who finished PhDs in 2016 (n  =  86). Results: For the years 2010-2020 1.1% of the PhD candidates report to have engaged in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 0.9% report to have presented results in a misleading way. 2.3% report that they know of persons at their department who have engaged in FFP the last 12 months. In total 1.5% report to have experienced pressure to engage in severe scientific misconduct (FFP) while 2.1% report to have experienced pressure to present results in a misleading way. On average 12.8% report to have been exposed to unethical pressure concerning inclusion or ordering of authors during the last 12 months, and 28.8% report to have knowledge about their department's written policies about research integrity. While some attitudes improve over the years, attitudes in general are not much changed from 2010-2020. None of the PhDs that received a PhD from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo in 2019 reported to have engaged in FFT or having experienced pressure to do so.1.1% experienced pressure to present results in other misleading ways, while 26.6% of respondents had experienced unethical pressure in relation to authorship during the course of the PhD fellowship. 4.3% knew about someone at their department who had presented results in a misleading manner. Some attitudes were not in line with traditional conceptions of research integrity, but most agreed that their research environment displayed research integrity. Conclusion: This long-term follow up study shows that few PhD-candidates report to engage in severe scientific misconduct, that they experience little pressure to do so, and with some exceptions, attitudes in in line with good research integrity. However, pressure in relation to authorship is relatively common. There is some improvement in research integrity from PhD candidates to recently finished PhDs, but in general research integrity is stable over time.

This paper utilizes critical theory to interrogate and problematize the practice of anonymising research sites as an ethical imperative. The contributing authors conduct research in and with various communities in southern Africa, position themselves and work from and within diverse areas and specialities of the social sciences. This article is developed from their rich and wide spectrum of field experience with a great diversity of communities, but mainly the poorer, under-resourced, socially and economically marginalized. The authors strongly identify with these communities whose anonymity in published research is seen as marginalizing. Such research sites are places and communities where these researchers grew up and live in, and thus not just as peripheral or 'out there' entities. Therefore, the naming of research sites in this context is deemed as being ethical, out of respect for participants, for a contextually embedded understanding, and for well-targeted interventions and policy influence.

Given the unprecedented scale of digital surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic, designing and implementing digital technologies in ways that are equitable is critical now and in future epidemics and pandemics. Yet to date there has been very limited consideration about what is necessary to promote their equitable design and implementation. In this study, literature relating to the use of digital surveillance technologies during epidemics and pandemics was collected and thematically analyzed for ethical norms and concerns related to equity and social justice. Eleven norms are reported, including procedural fairness and inclusive approaches to design and implementation, designing to rectify or avoid exacerbating inequities, and fair access. Identified concerns relate to digital divides, stigma and discrimination, disparate risk of harm, and unfair design processes. We conclude by considering what dimensions of social justice the norms promote and whether identified concerns can be addressed by building the identified norms into technology design and implementation practice.

Contract cheating and ghostwriting are forms of misconduct that are unethical and a serious academic issue, especially among healthcare professionals, as they directly impact patient health. To date, research on this area in the Middle East has been limited. Therefore, we used a validated self-administered questionnaire to investigate the awareness, perceptions, and reasons for these behaviors among 682 students in health specialties at five universities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The majority of the students (60.1%) were unaware of the terms "contract cheating" and "ghostwriting," and 69.5% had not received any prior training on integrity. However, having prior training had a positive effect on awareness levels, and respondents attending private universities were significantly more aware than those attending public universities. The factors that contributed to contract cheating behavior included poor time management, English language difficulties, and a lack of writing skills. These findings emphasize the need for integrity training at the national level to raise awareness.