...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Ethics >Familiar ethical issues amplified: how members of research ethics committees describe ethical distinctions between disaster and non-disaster research
【24h】

Familiar ethical issues amplified: how members of research ethics committees describe ethical distinctions between disaster and non-disaster research

机译:熟悉的道德问题不断扩大:研究道德委员会的成员如何描述灾难研究与非灾难研究之间的道德差异

获取原文
           

摘要

Background The conduct of research in settings affected by disasters such as hurricanes, floods and earthquakes is challenging, particularly when infrastructures and resources were already limited pre-disaster. However, since post-disaster research is essential to the improvement of the humanitarian response, it is important that adequate research ethics oversight be available. Methods We aim to answer the following questions: 1) what do research ethics committee (REC) members who have reviewed research protocols to be conducted following disasters in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) perceive as the key ethical concerns associated with disaster research?, and 2) in what ways do REC members understand these concerns to be distinct from those arising in research conducted in non-crisis situations? This qualitative study was developed using interpretative description methodology; 15 interviews were conducted with REC members. Results Four key ethical issues were identified as presenting distinctive considerations for disaster research to be implemented in LMICs, and were described by participants as familiar research ethics issues that were amplified in these contexts. First, REC members viewed disaster research as having strong social value due to its potential for improving disaster response, but also as requiring a higher level of justification compared to other research settings. Second, they identified vulnerability as an overarching concern for disaster research ethics, and a feature that required careful and critical appraisal when assessing protocols. They noted that research participants’ vulnerabilities frequently change in the aftermath of a disaster and often in unpredictable ways. Third, they identified concerns related to promoting and maintaining safety, confidentiality and data security in insecure or austere environments. Lastly, though REC members endorsed the need and usefulness of community engagement, they noted that there are significant challenges in a disaster setting over and above those typically encountered in global health research to achieve meaningful community engagement. Conclusion Disaster research presents distinctive ethical considerations that require attention to ensure that participants are protected. As RECs review disaster research protocols, they should address these concerns and consider how justification, vulnerability, security and confidentially, and community engagement are shaped by the realities of conducting research in a disaster.
机译:背景技术在受飓风,洪水和地震等灾难影响的环境中进行研究具有挑战性,特别是在灾前基础设施和资源已经有限的情况下。但是,由于灾后研究对于改善人道主义反应至关重要,因此重要的是要有足够的研究伦理监督。方法我们旨在回答以下问题:1)研究伦理委员会(REC)成员对低收入和中等收入国家(LMIC)发生灾害后要进行的研究协议进行了审查,认为这是与灾害相关的主要伦理问题研究;以及2)REC成员以什么方式理解这些关注点,与在非危机情况下进行的研究所关注的关注点不同?该定性研究是使用解释性描述方法开发的。与REC成员进行了15次访谈。结果确定了四个关键的伦理问题,这些问题为在中低收入国家实施的灾害研究提出了独特的考虑,并被参与者描述为熟悉的研究伦理问题,这些问题在这些情况下得到了放大。首先,REC成员认为灾害研究具有强大的社会价值,因为它具有改善灾害响应的潜力,而且与其他研究环境相比,还要求更高的论据。其次,他们将脆弱性确定为灾难研究伦理的首要考虑因素,并且该功能在评估协议时需要仔细和严格的评估。他们指出,研究参与者的脆弱性在灾难发生后经常以无法预测的方式发生变化。第三,他们确定了与在不安全或严峻环境中促进和维护安全性,机密性和数据安全性有关的问题。最后,尽管REC成员赞同社区参与的必要性和实用性,但他们指出,在灾难中,除了要实现有意义的社区参与之外,全球卫生研究中通常还面临着重大挑战。结论灾难研究提出了独特的伦理考虑,需要引起注意,以确保参与者受到保护。 REC在审查灾难研究协议时,应解决这些问题,并考虑在灾难中进行研究的现实如何形成合理性,脆弱性,安全性和机密性以及社区参与度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号