研究伦理委员会成员如何应对儿童的假设研究?MESSI研究结果

S. Taplin, J. Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, M. McArthur
{"title":"研究伦理委员会成员如何应对儿童的假设研究?MESSI研究结果","authors":"S. Taplin, J. Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, M. McArthur","doi":"10.1177/15562646221087530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods on research ethics committee (HREC) members’ approval of social research studies involving children. A total of 183 Australian HREC members completed an online survey. The higher the perceived sensitivity of the study topic, the less likely the study would be approved by an HREC member. HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. Payment was the most common reason for not approving the low risk studies, while risks were the most common reasons for not approving the more sensitive studies. Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive study topics. Both HRECs and researchers may benefit from additional guidance on managing risks and payments for children and young people in research.","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":"254 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study\",\"authors\":\"S. Taplin, J. Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, M. McArthur\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646221087530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods on research ethics committee (HREC) members’ approval of social research studies involving children. A total of 183 Australian HREC members completed an online survey. The higher the perceived sensitivity of the study topic, the less likely the study would be approved by an HREC member. HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. Payment was the most common reason for not approving the low risk studies, while risks were the most common reasons for not approving the more sensitive studies. Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive study topics. Both HRECs and researchers may benefit from additional guidance on managing risks and payments for children and young people in research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"254 - 266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221087530\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221087530","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

假设情景用于评估研究主题、付款和研究方法的敏感性对研究伦理委员会(HREC)成员批准涉及儿童的社会研究的影响。共有183名澳大利亚人权委员会成员完成了一项在线调查。研究主题的敏感性越高,该研究获得人权委员会成员批准的可能性就越小。如果没有付款,人权委员会成员最有可能批准每项假设研究。付款是不批准低风险研究的最常见原因,而风险是不批准更敏感研究的最常用原因。在家中对儿童进行的面对面访谈在更敏感的研究主题上获得了人权委员会成员的更高支持率。HREC和研究人员都可能受益于研究中关于管理儿童和年轻人风险和付款的额外指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study
Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods on research ethics committee (HREC) members’ approval of social research studies involving children. A total of 183 Australian HREC members completed an online survey. The higher the perceived sensitivity of the study topic, the less likely the study would be approved by an HREC member. HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. Payment was the most common reason for not approving the low risk studies, while risks were the most common reasons for not approving the more sensitive studies. Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive study topics. Both HRECs and researchers may benefit from additional guidance on managing risks and payments for children and young people in research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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