Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics最新文献

Despite the importance and acceptance of research ethics consultation as an entity in many medical research areas, little is known about its status in nursing research. Focusing on inquiries from nurse researchers, we retrospectively analyzed records of integrated clinical research consultation, provided by members of the Clinical Research Center independently of the research ethics committee, at a Japanese university hospital during 2018-2019. Among various consultations in nursing studies (n = 101), 43 were related to research ethics. The main issues in research ethics consultation were compatibility with guidelines (n = 28; 65%) and application of ethics review (n = 12; 28%). Future studies should investigate international settings and address the relevance of research ethics consultation to promote proper nursing studies.

Big data trends in health research challenge the oversight mechanism of the Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The traditional standards of research quality and the mandate of RECs illuminate deficits in facing the computational complexity, methodological novelty, and limited auditability of these approaches. To better understand the challenges facing RECs, we explored the perspectives and attitudes of the members of the seven Swiss Cantonal RECs via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Our interviews reveal limited experience among REC members with the review of big data research, insufficient expertise in data science, and uncertainty about how to mitigate big data research risks. Nonetheless, RECs could strengthen their oversight by training in data science and big data ethics, complementing their role with external experts and ad hoc boards, and introducing precise shared practices.

The ethics of returning nonactionable genetic research results to individuals are unclear. Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic variants are nonactionable, predominantly found in people of West African ancestry, and contribute to kidney disease disparities. To inform ethical research practice, we interviewed researchers, clinicians, and African American community members (n  =  76) about the potential risks and benefits of returning APOL1 research results. Stakeholders strongly supported returning APOL1 results. Benefits include reciprocity for participants, community education and rebuilding trust in research, and expectation of future actionability. Risks include analytic validity, misunderstanding, psychological burdens, stigma and discrimination, and questionable resource tradeoffs.

Conclusions:APOL1 results should be offered to participants. Responsibly fulfilling this offer requires careful identification of best communication practices, broader education about the topic, and ongoing community engagement.

An evidence-based approach to research ethics is critical to ethical research but little is known about how trauma survivors-especially those from vulnerable populations-respond to laboratory-based trauma research. One hundred four incarcerated women (N = 64 rape survivors) reported their traumatic life experiences, listened to and responded to an audio recording of a dating interaction that culminates in a completed rape, and then reported their responses to their participation. Compared to the control group (N = 40), rape survivors (N = 64) had more posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and these symptoms were associated with more emotional responding. Both groups showed a positive benefit-cost ratio with regard to their participation did not differ on their overall reactions to research participation. These findings suggest that laboratory-based trauma research methods are associated with consistently positive experiences, which can help inform researchers and institutional review boards about the risks and benefits of such research.

Most capacity development efforts for research ethics committees focus on committee members and little on ethics administrators. Increasing studies mandate the focus on administrators' capacity development needs to enable adequate and effective committee support. This study investigated current responsibilities, training requirements, and administrator role needs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among administrators from 62 National Health Research Ethics Council-registered research ethics committees in South Africa. In total, 36 administrators completed the questionnaire. Results show that, in addition to administration, they perform managerial, review process and guidance-advisory tasks. Nearly 49% indicated only having received informal research ethics-related training, not targeted formal training, with 81% of the informal training being through workshops. Research ethics administrators' responsibilities have evolved to complex tasks requiring targeted capacity development efforts.

This study evaluated stakeholders' perspectives regarding participation in two hypothetical neuromodulation trials focused on individuals with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs). Stakeholders (i.e., individuals at risk for ADRDs [n = 56], individuals with experience as a caregiver for someone with a cognitive disorder [n = 60], and comparison respondents [n = 124]) were recruited via MTurk. Primary outcomes were willingness to enroll (or enroll one's loved one), feeling lucky to have the opportunity to enroll, and feeling obligated to enroll in two protocols (transcranial magnetic stimulation, TMS; deep brain stimulation, DBS). Relative to the Comparison group, the At Risk group endorsed higher levels of "feeling lucky" regarding both research protocols, and higher willingness to participate in the TMS protocol. These findings provide tentative reassurance regarding the nature of decision making regarding neurotechnology-based research on ADRDs. Further work is needed to evaluate the full range of potential influences on research participation.

We created a petition for a national inquiry into the Australian system of research ethics and governance, to inform the politicians about the problems with the existing system. We analyzed the reasons that signatories offered for why signing the petition was important to them. A total of 409 comments (by 805 signatories) focused on five major themes: (1) views on previous changes to the system of research ethics and governance; (2) drawbacks of the existing system; (3) suggested changes to the system; (4) anticipated impacts of changing the system; and (5) miscellaneous/other comments. Comments ranged from several words to over 400 words in length, and most often focused on the procedural aspects, and commented on theme 2: drawbacks of the existing system.

Research ethics is a fundamental part of the entire research. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are sensitive group of research participants because their long-term health problems cause significant changes in their foot health. In foot health research, data are usually collected through a clinical assessment of the foot or questionnaires. However, there is limited evidence of the reported research ethics of empirical studies on foot health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Therefore this review aimed to analyze the reported research ethics of peer-reviewed empirical studies focusing on foot health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as research participants. This systematic review used the Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases. A total of 1,653 records were identified, and 32 articles were included in the final analysis. Reporting research ethics in studies of patients with rheumatoid arthritis is fragmented, focusing predominantly on ethical approval and informed consent and lacking a broader discussion about research ethics.