Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics最新文献

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.

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.

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.

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.

There were eighteen Research Ethics Committees (RECs) operating in Ghana as of December 2019 but no empirical assessment of their operational characteristics had been conducted. We assessed the characteristics of Ghanaian RECs using an existing Self-Assessment Tool for RECs in Developing Countries. We present results from nine RECs that participated in this nation-wide assessment. Our results indicate that the RECs are generally adherent to the recommendations in the Tool including being composed of members with diverse expertise. They also reviewed and approved research protocols as well as had access to some limited funding for their activities. There is no national policy on research human protections or an ethics authority to regulate the activities of the RECs. We recommend the establishment of this authority in Ghana while encouraging institutions to sustain efforts aimed at making their RECs operate independently.

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.

The phase I trial is the first step in administering a drug to humans, but it has no therapeutic purpose. Under the absence of therapeutic purpose, healthy volunteers demonstrated different motivations, unlike the actual patients participating in trials. There were many reported motivations, such as financial motivation, contributing to the health science, accessing ancillary health care benefits, scientific interest or interest in the goals of the study, meeting people, and general curiosity. The aim of this study was to identify the motivation and characteristics of healthy volunteers participating in phase I trials in the Republic of Korea. We gave surveys to 121 healthy volunteers to study their demographic characteristics and the reasons of participation. We identified whether the decision to participate in the research was influenced by demographic factors and whether the perception and attitudes toward the research were influenced by the characteristics of the healthy volunteers. After completion of the first survey, 12 healthy volunteers who had participated in a phase I clinical trial were selected to answer the second interview. According to our survey, most healthy volunteers were unmarried men and economically dependent. Most of them participated in the study because of financial reward. The most important factor to measure financial reward was the research period. Also, 43% of the volunteers were university students, 42% answered "university graduation" and 55% were residing in family-owned houses. Many healthy volunteers were found to be living in family homes and to have a student status or lack of economic independence. Results of the survey showed that 64% of respondents indicated having more than one clinical trial participation. In-depth interviews showed that healthy volunteers had diverse motivation to participate in research and that healthy volunteer perceive the clinical trial positively. The main motivation for healthy volunteers' participation in research was "financial reward." Healthy volunteers also considered research schedules, processes, and safety, and had a positive perception of clinical trials, but they thought that the public has a negative perception.

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.

The problem: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. The research subjects: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. Methods: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. Results: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. Conclusion: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.