1
|
Eilat S. The shadow of dementia: Listening to undecidability in ethnographic interviews with persons suspecting possible dementia. J Aging Stud 2023; 66:101156. [PMID: 37704274 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaging.2023.101156] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2022] [Revised: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 06/25/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023]
Abstract
Even before a diagnosis of dementia, people may negotiate in their everyday lives the fears and suspicions about the possibility of a future with dementia. My field of research involves JewishIsraeli older adult individuals who suspect that they are beginning to lose their memory, but before seeking out a formal diagnosis-and when not seeking a diagnosis at all is an equal possibility. By distinguishing their experience of suspecting possible dementia from this of living with dementia, I attempt to illuminate the social, bio-diagnostic and cultural shadows of dementia hovering in the background of their everyday experience. I begin by shedding light on the ethical and methodological context of my specific field in Israel. I next reflect upon the concept of "shadow," that is constituted within and reflecting the assemblages of lurking presences accompanying my interlocutors' daily negotiations of the possibility of dementia. I then situate their lived experiences, as well as my ethnographic engagement with them, in the context of the prevailing cultural and social moralities surrounding this possibility. Finally, I show how a negotiation of the place that this shadow occupies in their lives arises in the encounter with the ethnographer. This first account of people before diagnosis and not through the diagnostic event, while keeping the space for deciding about a possible future of diagnosis open, can contribute to the understanding of undecidability as an ethical stance in ethnography, incorporating the suspension of the need to order realities through the imperatives of a diagnosis of dementia. Further, understanding these mundane negotiations with these shadows can help us allow more space for uncertainty and unpredictability as legitimate forms of living with dementia.
Collapse
|
2
|
Morton J. Ethics review, reflective equilibrium and reflexivity. Nurs Ethics 2021; 29:49-62. [PMID: 34318724 PMCID: PMC8866750 DOI: 10.1177/09697330211003252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or their equivalent review applications for prospective research with human participants. Reviewers use universally agreed principlesi to make decisions about whether prospective health and social care research is ethical. Close attention to understanding how reviewers go about their decision-making work and consider principles in practice is limited. OBJECTIVE The study aimed to understand how reviewers made decisions in the contexts of meetings and to understand more about how reviewers approach their work. The purpose of this article is to draw on data and findings and to show how reflective equilibrium as a theoretical frame can (1) deepen understanding of ethics review and (2) permit a reflexive examination of the habitual processes of review. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS Methods captured the day-to-day work of the RECs. Seventeen applications were heard during eight observations. There were 12 formal interviews with reviewers (n = 12) and with researchers (n = 8) which are not reported on in this article. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Organisational permission for the study was given by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) whose functions became part of the Health Research Authority (HRA) during the study. The study was given favourable opinion by the University of Salford's REC (Reference HSCR11/17). FINDINGS Data were analysed using constructed grounded theory resulting in eight themes which revealed attention to procedure and engagement with applications. Reflective equilibrium was used as a qualitative frame to interpret themes distilling them into three processes at work in review: emotion and intuition; imagination and creative thinking; and intuition and trust. DISCUSSION Reviewers went back and forth between universal principles and considered these in the contexts of each application using the above processes. CONCLUSIONS Reflective equilibrium offers a coherent and grounded account of review work. Reflexivity in training for reviewers is essential for improving practices. The challenges reflexivity presents can be assisted by using reflective equilibrium as a tool to illuminate tacit review processes.
Collapse
|
3
|
O’Reilly M, Kiyimba N, Lester JN, Edwards D. Establishing quality in discursive psychology: Three domains to consider. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY 2020. [DOI: 10.1080/14780887.2020.1810373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle O’Reilly
- University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
- Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | | | - Jessica Nina Lester
- Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
- Inquiry Methodology, School of Education, Indiana University
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cribb A. Managing ethical uncertainty: implicit normativity and the sociology of ethics. SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS 2020; 42 Suppl 1:21-34. [PMID: 31749190 PMCID: PMC7496509 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
This article illustrates and discusses the idea of 'implicit normativity', and specifically its relevance to the management of ethical uncertainty. In particular I consider (i) the role implicit normativity plays in masking and containing potential ethical uncertainty and (ii) the contrast and boundary between implicit normativity and 'overt ethics' where ethical contestation - as well as particular processes and agents - are highlighted as salient. Using examples I show how the idea of implicit normativity can be applied not only to specific practices but also to whole fields of practice. The notion of 'moral settlements' - along with the explanatory role of the threat of 'chaos' - is introduced and elucidated to develop these points. I argue that attention to the management of ethical uncertainty shows the critically important contribution that an ambitious sociology of ethics can make to clinical ethics, including by helping to formulate and drive home questions about the 'ethics of ethics'. The account presented here has resonances with work that seeks to use sociological lenses to move beyond conventional bioethics, including Petersen's (2013) call for a 'normative sociology'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan Cribb
- Centre for Public Policy ResearchKing's College LondonLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dawson A, Lignou S, Siriwardhana C, O'Mathúna DP. Why research ethics should add retrospective review. BMC Med Ethics 2019; 20:68. [PMID: 31597565 PMCID: PMC6785872 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-019-0399-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2019] [Accepted: 08/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Research ethics is an integral part of research, especially that involving human subjects. However, concerns have been expressed that research ethics has come to be seen as a procedural concern focused on a few well-established ethical issues that researchers need to address to obtain ethical approval to begin their research. While such prospective review of research is important, we argue that it is not sufficient to address all aspects of research ethics. We propose retrospective review as an important complement to prospective review. We offer two arguments to support our claim that prospective review is insufficient. First, as currently practiced, research ethics has become for some a ‘tick box’ exercise to get over the ‘hurdle’ of ethics approval. This fails to capture much of what is important in ethics and does not promote careful reflection on the ethical issues involved. Second, the current approach tends to be rules-based and we argue that research ethics should go beyond this to develop people’s capacity to be sensitive to the relevant moral features of their research, their ethical decision-making skills and their integrity. Retrospective review of a project’s ethical issues, and how they were addressed, could help to achieve those aims better. We believe that a broad range of stakeholders should be involved in such retrospective review, including representatives of ethics committees, participating communities and those involved in the research. All stakeholders could then learn from others’ perspectives and experiences. An open and transparent assessment of research could help to promote trust and understanding between stakeholders, as well as identifying areas of agreement and disagreement and how these can be built upon or addressed. Retrospective review also has the potential to promote critical reflection on ethics and help to develop ethical sensitivity and integrity within the research team. Demonstrating this would take empirical evidence and we suggest that any such initiatives should be accompanied by research into their effectiveness. Our article concludes with a discussion of some possible objections to our proposal, and an invitation to further debate and discussion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Dónal P O'Mathúna
- Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland. .,The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Silaigwana B, Wassenaar D. Research Ethics Committees’ Oversight of Biomedical Research in South Africa: A Thematic Analysis of Ethical Issues Raised During Ethics Review of Non-Expedited Protocols. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2019; 14:107-116. [DOI: 10.1177/1556264618824921] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
In South Africa, biomedical research cannot commence until it has been reviewed and approved by a local research ethics committee (REC). There remains a dearth of empirical data on the nature and frequency of ethical issues raised by such committees. This study sought to identify ethical concerns typically raised by two South African RECs. Meeting minutes for 180 protocols reviewed between 2009 and 2014 were coded and analyzed using a preexisting framework. Results showed that the most frequent queries involved informed consent, respect for participants, and scientific validity. Interestingly, administrative issues (non-ethical) such as missing researchers’ CVs and financial contracts emerged more frequently than ethical questions such as favorable risk/benefit ratio and fair participant selection. Although not generalizable to all RECs, our data provide insights into two South African RECs’ review concerns. More education and awareness of the actual ethical issues typically raised by such committees might help improve review outcomes and relationships between researchers and RECs.
Collapse
|
7
|
Lynch HF, Nicholls S, Meyer MN, Taylor HA. Of Parachutes and Participant Protection: Moving Beyond Quality to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2018; 14:190-196. [PMID: 30541368 DOI: 10.1177/1556264618812625] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
There are several reasons to believe that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) contribute to ethical research and the protection of research participants, but there are also important reasons to interrogate this belief. Determining whether IRBs and HRPPs "work" requires empirical evaluation of whether and how well they actually achieve what they were designed to do. In other words, it is critical to examine their outcomes and not only their procedures and structures. In this response to Tsan, we argue that the concept of IRB and HRPP quality entails three dimensions: (1) effectiveness, (2) procedures and structures likely to promote effectiveness, and (3) features unrelated to effectiveness but nonetheless essential, such as efficiency, fairness, and proportionality. Because not all types of quality necessarily guarantee or entail effectiveness, we suggest that broad quality assessments, including such features as regulatory compliance and other procedural measures suggested by Tsan, are unhelpful as the first step in evaluating IRBs and HRPPs. Instead, we must start with outcomes relevant to effectiveness. To do this, we launched the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (AEREO), with a mission to define and specify ways to measure relevant outcomes for research ethics oversight, empirically evaluate whether those outcomes are achieved, test new approaches to achieving them, and ultimately, develop and implement empirically-based policy and practice to advance IRB and HRPP effectiveness. We describe several anticipated AEREO projects and call for collaboration between various stakeholders to more meaningfully evaluate IRB and HRPPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Holly A Taylor
- 4 Johns Hopkins University Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | -
- The following AEREO Consortium Members endorse this article in their individual capacities and not necessarily on behalf of any institutions of which they are a part: Angela Bain, Barbara E. Bierer, Justin Clapp, Anne K. Clark, Carl Coleman, Whitney Eriksen, Jonathan Green, Sarah Greene, Elisa A. Hurley, Steven Joffe, Susan Kornetsky, Lisa M. Lee, Lindsay McNair, Linda Parreco, Suzanne M. Rivera, Stephen Rosenfeld, Michele Russell-Einhorn, Megan Singleton, David H. Strauss, Emma Tumilty, and Tracy Ziolek. This publication represents the views of the authors and does not reflect the official position or policy of the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Morton J. 'Text-work' in Research Ethics Review: The significance of documents in and beyond committee meetings. Account Res 2018; 25:387-403. [PMID: 30343597 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1537790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
This article analyzes how a formal text (the Ethics Review Form) available at National Health Service Research Ethics Committees (NHSRECs) in the United Kingdom was used in meetings. Derived from the work of Dorothy Smith on incorporating texts into institutional ethnography (IE), it proposes the concept of "text work" as a way into understanding more about decision-making in ethics review and describes the extent to which this formal text shaped and influenced review work. The research study used observations of committee meetings, field-notes and interviews to produce an ethnographic mapping of Research Ethics Committees' (RECs) work. This article draws on one aspect of the research which was the process of isolating a particular, ubiquitous text and analyzing how it worked and was worked on in the meetings. The analysis contributes to contemporary discussion offering an alternative to ongoing debates about idealized ways of conducting ethics review. Finally, some tentative suggestions are made about improving training, based on and starting from the work which reviewers undertake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Morton
- a Department of Health and Society , University of Salford , Salford , UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sacarlal J, Muchanga V, Mabutana C, Mabui M, Mariamo A, Cuamba AJ, Fumo LA, Silveira J, Heitman E, Moon TD. Research ethics review at University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM)/Maputo Central Hospital, Mozambique (2013-2016): a descriptive analysis of the start-up of a new research ethics committee (REC). BMC Med Ethics 2018; 19:37. [PMID: 29792193 PMCID: PMC5967046 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0291-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2017] [Accepted: 05/16/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mozambique has seen remarkable growth in biomedical research over the last decade. To meet a growing need, the National Committee for Bioethics in Health of Mozambique (CNBS) encouraged the development of ethical review processes at institutions that regularly conduct medical and social science research. In 2012, the Faculty of Medicine (FM) of University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM) and the Maputo Central Hospital (MCH) established a joint Institutional Committee on Bioethics for Health (CIBS FM & MCH). This study examines the experience of the first 4 years of the CIBS FM & MCH. METHODS This study provides a descriptive, retrospective analysis of research protocols submitted to and approved by the CIBS FM & MCH between March 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016, together with an analysis of the Committee's respective reviews and actions. RESULTS A total of 356 protocols were submitted for review during the period under analysis, with 309 protocols approved. Sixty-four percent were submitted by students, faculty, and researchers from UEM, mainly related to Master's degree research (42%). Descriptive cross-sectional studies were the most frequently reviewed research (61%). The majority were prospective (71%) and used quantitative methodologies (51%). The Departments of Internal Medicine at MCH and Community Health at the FM submitted the most protocols from their respective institutions, with 38 and 53% respectively. The CIBS's average time to final approval for all protocols was 56 days, rising to 161 for the 40 protocols that required subsequent national-level review by the CNBS. CONCLUSIONS Our results show that over its first 4 years, the CIBS FM & MCH has been successful in managing a constant demand for protocol review and that several broad quality improvement initiatives, such as investigator mentoring and an electronic protocol submission platform have improved efficiency in the review process and the overall quality of the protocols submitted. Beyond Maputo, long-term investments in training and ethical capacity building for CIBS across the country continue to be needed, as Mozambique develops greater capacity for research and makes progress toward improving the health of all its citizens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jahit Sacarlal
- Faculty of Medicine, University Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique
| | - Vasco Muchanga
- Faculty of Medicine, University Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique
| | | | | | | | - Assa Júlio Cuamba
- Faculty of Medicine, University Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique
| | | | | | | | - Troy D. Moon
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jordan SR, Gray PW. Clarifying the concept of the "Social" in risk assessments for human subjects research. Account Res 2017; 25:1-20. [PMID: 29140730 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1403323] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
International guidelines for the conduct of research with human participants, such as those put forth by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS, 2002), recommend that research review committees account for social risk and benefits to society in their review of proposed research. What do the concepts of the "social" and "society" mean in the context of the review of human participants research? Here we analyze concepts of social and society to define the terms: social harm, social risk, social benefit, and benefits to society. We argue that use of these terms invite more questions than answers and beg for difficult empirical research to determine the nature, likelihood, and magnitude of this category of risk and benefit. Until more research is done and these questions are answered, we advise reviewers to adopt an attitude of provisionalism and caution in their review of specifically "social" risks and benefits and "benefits to society."
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara R Jordan
- a Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , Center for Public Administration and Policy , Blacksburg , Virginia , USA
| | - Phillip W Gray
- b Texas A&M University at Qatar , Liberal Arts Program, Texas A&M Engineering Building , Doha , Qatar
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Clapp JT, Gleason KA, Joffe S. Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters. Soc Sci Med 2017; 194:25-33. [PMID: 29059597 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2017] [Revised: 10/12/2017] [Accepted: 10/13/2017] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
While ethnographic study has described the discussions that occur during human subjects research ethics review, investigators have minimal access to the interactions of ethics oversight committees. They instead receive letters stipulating changes to their proposed studies. Ethics committee letters are central to the practice of research ethics: they change the nature of research, alter the knowledge it produces, and in doing so construct what ethical research is and how it is pursued. However, these letters have rarely been objects of analysis. Accordingly, we conducted a qualitative analysis of letters written by American institutional review boards (IRBs) overseeing biomedical and health behavioral research. We sought to clarify how IRBs exercise their authority by assessing the frequency with which they provided reasons for their stipulations as well as the nature of these reasons. We found that IRBs frequently do not justify their stipulations; rather, they often leave ethical or regulatory concerns implicit or frame their comments as boilerplate language replacements, procedural instructions, or demands for missing information. When they do provide justifications, their rationales exhibit substantial variability in explicitness and clarity. These rhetorical tendencies indicate that the authority of IRBs is grounded primarily in their role as bureaucratic gatekeepers. We conclude by suggesting that greater attention to justification could help shift the basis of the IRB-researcher relationship from compliance to mutual accountability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin T Clapp
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, SO5035 Silverstein Building, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
| | - Katharine A Gleason
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Blockley Hall 14th Floor, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
| | - Steven Joffe
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Blockley Hall 14th Floor, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Dixon-Woods M, Foy C, Hayden C, Al-Shahi Salman R, Tebbutt S, Schroter S. Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e011973. [PMID: 27580832 PMCID: PMC5013460 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011973] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Frustration continues to be directed at delays in gaining approvals for undertaking health research in the UK. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an ethics officer intervention on rates of favourable opinions (approval) and provisional opinions (requiring revision and resubmission) and on the time taken to reach a final opinion by research ethics committees (RECs), to characterise how the role operated in practice, and to investigate applicants' views. DESIGN Mixed-method study involving (i) a 2-group, non-randomised before-and-after intervention study of RECs assigned an ethics officer and a matched comparator group; (ii) a process evaluation involving a survey of applicants and documentary analysis. PARTICIPANTS 6 RECs and 3 associated ethics officers; 18 comparator RECs; REC applicants. RESULTS Rates of provisional and favourable opinions between ethics officer and comparator RECs did not show a statistically significant effect of the intervention (logistic regression, p=0.26 for favourable opinions and p=0.31 for provisional opinions). Mean time to reach a decision showed a non-significant reduction (ANOVA, p=0.22) from 33.3 to 32.0 days in the ethics officer RECs compared with the comparator RECs (32.6 to 32.9 days). The survey (30% response rate) indicated applicant satisfaction and also suggested that ethics officer support might be more useful before submission. Ethics officers were successful in identifying many issues with applications, but the intervention did not function exactly as designed: in 31% of applicants, no contact between the applicants and the ethics officer took place before REC review. LIMITATIONS This study was a non-randomised comparison cohort study. Some data were missing. CONCLUSIONS An ethics officer intervention, as designed and implemented in this study, did not increase the proportion of applications to RECs that were approved on first review and did not reduce the time to a committee decision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary Dixon-Woods
- Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK
| | - Chris Foy
- R&D, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, UK
| | | | - Rustam Al-Shahi Salman
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, School of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hemminki E. Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States. Health Res Policy Syst 2016; 14:5. [PMID: 26865158 PMCID: PMC4750216 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0078-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2015] [Accepted: 01/05/2016] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The aim of this paper is to compare common features and variation in the work of research ethics committees (RECs) in Finland to three other countries – England, Canada, the United States of America (USA) – in the late 2000s. Methods Several approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts, documents, previous reports, presentations in meetings and observations. A theoretical framework was created and data from various sources synthesized. Results In Finland, RECs were regulated by a medical research law, whereas in the other countries many related laws and rules guided RECs; drug trials had specific additional rules. In England and the USA, there was a REC control body. In all countries, members were voluntary and included lay-persons, and payment arrangements varied. Patient protection was the main ethics criteria, but other criteria (research advancement, availability of results, payments, detailed fulfilment of legislation) varied. In all countries, RECs had been given administrative duties. Variations by country included the mandate, practical arrangements, handling of multi-site research, explicitness of proportionate handlings, judging scientific quality, time-limits for decisions, following of projects, role in institute protection, handling conflicts of interests, handling of projects without informed consent, and quality assurance research. The division of work between REC members and secretariats varied in checking of formalities. In England, quality assurance of REC work was thorough, fairly thorough in the USA, and not performed in Finland. Conclusions The work of RECs in the four countries varied notably. Various deficiencies in the system require action, for which international comparison can provide useful insights. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0078-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elina Hemminki
- THL (National Institute for Health and Welfare), P.O. Box 30, 00271, Helsinki, Finland.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Devisch I, Vanheule S. Foucault at the bedside: a critical analysis of empowering a healthy lifestyle. J Eval Clin Pract 2015; 21:427-32. [PMID: 25653105 DOI: 10.1111/jep.12329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/27/2014] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Since quite a few years, philosophy is heading towards the bedside of the patient: the practice of philosophy has stepped out of its ivory tower, it seems, to deal with empirical or practical questions. Apart from the advantages, we should keep in mind the importance of a critical analysis of medical or clinical practice as such. If ethics partakes the clinical stage, it runs the risk only to discuss the how question and to forget the more fundamental what or why questions: what are we doing exactly and why is it good for? Starting from the principle of the empowerment of the patient, we will demonstrate how the discourse on empowerment in health care seems to forget a profound reflection upon this principle as such. By rehearsing some basics from the governmentality theory of Michel Foucault and the actualization of it by Nicolas Rose, we will argue how philosophical investigation in medical-ethical evolutions such as empowerment of the patient is still needed to understand what is really going on in today's clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ignaas Devisch
- Department of Primary Care and Family Medicine, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Mc Loughlin F, Hadgraft NT, Atkinson D, Marley JV. Aboriginal health research in the remote Kimberley: an exploration of perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14:517. [PMID: 25343849 PMCID: PMC4213490 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0517-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2014] [Accepted: 10/13/2014] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Background For decades Indigenous peoples have argued for health research reform claiming methods used and results obtained often reflect the exploitative history of colonisation. In 2006 the Kimberley Aboriginal Health Planning Forum (KAHPF) Research Subcommittee (hereafter, the Subcommittee) was formed to improve research processes in the remote Kimberley region of north Western Australia. This paper explores the major perceptions, attitudes and concerns of stakeholders in the Subcommittee. Methods Qualitative analysis was carried out on data retrospectively collected from multiple evidentiary sources linked to the Subcommittee i.e. database, documents, interviews, review forms and emails from 1 January 2007 to 31 October 2013. Results From 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2013 the Subcommittee received 95 proposals, 57 (60%) driven by researchers based outside the region. Local stakeholders (22 from 12 different Kimberley organisations) raised concerns about 36 (38%) projects, 30 (83%) of which were driven by external researchers. Major concerns of local stakeholders were inadequate community consultation and engagement; burden of research on the region; negative impact of research practices; lack of demonstrable community benefit; and power and control of research. Major themes identified by external stakeholders (25 external researchers who completed the review form) were unanticipated difficulties with consultation processes; barriers to travel; perceiving research as a competing priority for health services and time-consuming ethics processes. External stakeholders also identified strategies for improving research practices in the Kimberley: importance of community support in building good relationships; employing local people; flexibility in research approaches; and importance of allocating sufficient time for consultation and data collection. Conclusions Health research in the Kimberley has improved in recent years, however significant problems remain. Prioritising research addressing genuine local needs is essential in closing the gap in Indigenous life expectancy. The long-term aim is for local health service connected researchers to identify priorities, lead, conduct and participate in the majority of local health research. For this to occur, a more radical move involving reconceptualising the research process is needed. Changes to institutional timeframes and funding processes could improve Indigenous and community-based research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frieda Mc Loughlin
- Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, 12 Napier Terrace, PO Box 1377, Broome, WA, 6725, Australia.
| | - Nyssa T Hadgraft
- Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, 12 Napier Terrace, PO Box 1377, Broome, WA, 6725, Australia.
| | - David Atkinson
- Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, 12 Napier Terrace, PO Box 1377, Broome, WA, 6725, Australia. .,The Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, The University of Western Australia, 12 Napier Terrace, PO Box 1377, Broome, WA, 6725, Australia.
| | - Julia V Marley
- Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services Council, 12 Napier Terrace, PO Box 1377, Broome, WA, 6725, Australia. .,The Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, The University of Western Australia, 12 Napier Terrace, PO Box 1377, Broome, WA, 6725, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Jaspers P, Houtepen R, Horstman K. Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices. Soc Sci Med 2013; 98:311-8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.03.043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2012] [Revised: 12/18/2012] [Accepted: 03/20/2013] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
17
|
Ilić N, Auchlin A, Hadengue A, Wenger A, Hurst SA. Informed Consent Forms in Oncology Research: Linguistic Tools Identify Recurrent Pitfalls. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013. [DOI: 10.1080/21507716.2013.788101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
18
|
|
19
|
Guillemin M, Gillam L, Rosenthal D, Bolitho A. Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and practices. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2012; 7:38-49. [PMID: 22850142 DOI: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.38] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being overprotective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.
Collapse
|
20
|
Armstrong N, Dixon-Woods M, Thomas A, Rusk G, Tarrant C. Do informed consent documents for cancer trials do what they should? A study of manifest and latent functions. SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS 2012; 34:1230-45. [PMID: 22443456 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01469.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
Though patient information leaflets (PILs) are provided to those invited to take part in medical research, they usually fall short in facilitating informed decisions about participation. We aimed to explore why there is an enduring requirement for a process that seems not to 'work', and to explain why the problems have proven resistant to correction. We analysed applications for ethical approval for 13 oncology trials and related official guidance. We interviewed 26 patients invited to participate in the trials. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. We show that PILs function latently to satisfy purposes other than their manifest function as a decision-facilitating tool. PILs are the outcome of a process of institutional scripting that is strongly shaped by the accountability demands inherent in the ethical review process. This results in the PIL being made to serve purposes both as a prospectus and as a contract. Though PILs have value for some patients, most do not recognise these documents as operating primarily in their interests. Patients make decisions in ways that deviate from official ideals. This analysis is important in recognising that no simple technical fix is available, and in enhancing sociological understanding of the institutional role of documents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Armstrong
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 2nd Floor, Adrian Building, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Guta A, Nixon SA, Wilson MG. Resisting the seduction of "ethics creep": using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Soc Sci Med 2012; 98:301-10. [PMID: 23063216 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2011] [Revised: 09/10/2012] [Accepted: 09/11/2012] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
In this paper we examine "ethics creep", a concept developed by Haggerty (2004) to account for the increasing bureaucratization of research ethics boards and institutional review boards (REB/IRBs) and the expanding reach of ethics review. We start with an overview of the recent surge of academic interest in ethics creep and similar arguments about the prohibitive effect of ethics review. We then introduce elements of Michel Foucault's theoretical framework which are used to inform our analysis of empirical data drawn from a multi-phase study exploring the accessibility of community-engaged research within existing ethics review structures in Canada. First, we present how ethics creep emerged both explicitly and implicitly in our data. We then present data that demonstrate how REB/IRBs are experiencing their own form of regulation. Finally, we present data that situate ethics review alongside other trends affecting the academy. Our results show that ethics review is growing in some ways while simultaneously being constrained in others. Drawing on Foucauldian theory we reframe ethics creep as a repressive hypothesis which belies the complexity of the phenomenon it purports to explain. Our discussion complicates ethics creep by proposing an understanding of REB/IRBs that locates them at the intersection of various neoliberal discourses about the role of science, ethics, and knowledge production.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrian Guta
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada; Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Canada.
| | - Stephanie A Nixon
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada; Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Canada; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - Michael G Wilson
- McMaster Health Forum, Canada; Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Canada; Ontario HIV Treatment Network, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
de Jong JP, van Zwieten MCB, Willems DL. Ethical review from the inside: repertoires of evaluation in Research Ethics Committee meetings. SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS 2012; 34:1039-1052. [PMID: 22332841 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01458.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
Evaluating the practice of ethical review by Research Ethics Committees (REC) could help protect the interests of human participants and promote scientific progress. To facilitate such evaluations, we conducted an ethnographic study of how an REC reviews research proposals during its meetings. We observed 13 meetings of a Dutch REC and studied REC documents. We coded this material inductively and categorised these codes in two repertoires of evaluation: a repertoire of rules and a repertoire of production. In the repertoire of rules the REC applies rules, weighs scientific value and burdens to the participants and makes a final judgment on a research proposal in a meeting. In the repertoire of production, REC members check documents and forms and advise researchers on how to improve their proposals and can use informal communication. Based on these findings, we think that evaluations of the practice of ethical review should take into account the fact that RECs can use a repertoire of rules and a repertoire of production to evaluate research proposals. Combining these two repertoires can be a viable option so that the REC gives researchers advice on how to improve their proposals to prevent rejection of valuable research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean Philippe de Jong
- Department of General Practice, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Freshwater D, Cahill J, Walsh E, Muncey T. Qualitative research as evidence: criteria for rigour and relevance. J Res Nurs 2010. [DOI: 10.1177/1744987110385278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
This paper is about the nature and construct of evidence and its relation to qualitative research. Using a post-modern lens, we begin by defining evidence, signifying the importance of context, and use discourse as a vehicle for looking at the ways in which qualitative research evidence struggles to achieve the equivalent standing of its quantitative counterpart. In outlining the role of discourse in the creation of research paradigms, we offer a conceptual map that enables a repositioning of qualitative research in the evidence-based genre. In order to best illustrate our standpoint, we then provide two examples of qualitative, transformational research approaches and relate these to the criteria of rigour and relevance, criteria which we would argue when met are examples of high-quality evidence. Having used the examples of discourse analysis and auto-ethnography, we then conclude by exposing and decentralising the myth that surrounds the discourse of evidence-based practice, which continues, albeit unintentionally, to discredit any evidence that falls outside of its parameters.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D. Freshwater
- Dean and Professor, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, UK,
| | - J. Cahill
- Research Fellow, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, UK
| | - E. Walsh
- Senior Lecturer, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, UK
| | - T. Muncey
- Director of Institute, Institute of Health and Social Work, University of Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Kjellström S, Fridlund B. Literature review: status and trends of research ethics in Swedish nurses' dissertations. Nurs Ethics 2010; 17:383-92. [PMID: 20444779 DOI: 10.1177/0969733009355541] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Research ethics is increasingly formally regulated, but little is known about how ethical considerations are reported in dissertations. The aim of this literature study was to describe the status and trends of ethical considerations in Swedish doctoral dissertations written by registered nurses. A total of 77 dissertations from 1987, 1997, and 2007 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed by descriptive statistics. Ethical considerations were mostly overlooked in 1987, but almost ubiquitous by 2007. All dissertations in 2007, except one, had a section on ethical considerations; however, these were short, lacking in references, and short on content. The most common topic was informed consent and approval from research ethics review boards, followed by confidentiality and ethical aspects of methodological issues. Our results imply that the quantity and quality of ethical considerations must be improved in order to assure ethical soundness for participants, patients, researchers, and society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sofia Kjellström
- Institute of Gerontology, School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.
| | | |
Collapse
|