Research ethics and collaborative research in health and social care: Analysis of UK research ethics policies, scoping review of the literature, and focus group study

被引:2
|
作者
De Poli, Chiara [1 ,2 ]
Oyebode, Jan [3 ]
机构
[1] London Sch Econ & Polit Sci, Care Policy & Evaluat Ctr, Dept Hlth Policy, London, England
[2] London Sch Econ & Polit Sci, Care Policy & Evaluat Ctr, Dept Social Policy, London, England
[3] Univ Bradford, Fac Hlth Studies, Ctr Appl Dementia Studies, Bradford, England
来源
PLOS ONE | 2023年 / 18卷 / 12期
关键词
PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ETHICS; COMMUNITY-ENGAGED RESEARCH; YOUNG-PEOPLE; CHALLENGES; COMMITTEES; VULNERABILITY; OVERSIGHT; KNOWLEDGE; CONSENT;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0296223
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Current research ethics frameworks were developed on the footprint of biomedical, experimental research and present several pitfalls when applied to non-experimental social sciences. This work explores how the normative principles underpinning policy and regulatory frameworks of research ethics and the related operational processes work in practice in the context of collaborative health and social care research. The work was organised in three phases. First, UK research ethics policy documents were analysed thematically, with themes further organised under the categories of 'Principles' and 'Processes'. Next, we conducted a scoping review of articles about research ethics in the context of collaborative health and social care research, published in English between 2010 and 2022. We then held an exploratory focus group with ten academic researchers with relevant experience to gather their views on how the research ethics system works in practice in England (UK). The thematic framework developed in the first phase supported the analysis of the articles included in the scoping review and of focus group data. The analysis of policy documents identified twelve themes. All were associated to both a principle and a related operational process. The scoping review identified 31 articles. Across these, some themes were barely acknowledged (e.g., Compliance with legislation). Other themes were extensively covered (e.g., The working of Research Ethics Committees), often to discuss issues and limitations in how, in practice, the research ethics system and its processes deal with collaborative research and to suggest options for improvement. Focus group data were largely consistent with the findings of the scoping review. This work provides evidence of the poor alignment between how the research ethics system is normatively expected to work and how it works in practice and offers options that could make research ethics more fit for purpose when addressing collaborative research in health and social care.
引用
收藏
页数:28
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Ethics of health policy and systems research: a scoping review of the literature
    Pratt, Bridget
    Paul, Amy
    Hyder, Adnan A.
    Ali, Joseph
    HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING, 2017, 32 (06) : 890 - 910
  • [2] Fitting a square peg in a round hole? A mixed-methods study on research ethics and collaborative health and social care research involving 'vulnerable' groups
    De Poli, Chiara
    Oyebode, Jan
    Airoldi, Mara
    Stevens, Martin
    Capstick, Andrea
    Mays, Nicholas
    Clark, Michael
    Driessen, Annelieke
    Rivas, Carol
    Penhale, Bridget
    Fletcher, James R.
    Russell, Amy M.
    HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2025, 23 (01):
  • [3] A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review
    Nicholls, Stuart G.
    Hayes, Tavis P.
    Brehaut, Jamie C.
    McDonald, Michael
    Weijer, Charles
    Saginur, Raphael
    Fergusson, Dean
    PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (07):
  • [4] Research Ethics in the European Influenzanet Consortium: Scoping Review
    Genevieve, Lester Darryl
    Wangmo, Tenzin
    Dietrich, Damien
    Woolley-Meza, Olivia
    Flahault, Antoine
    Elger, Bernice Simone
    JMIR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SURVEILLANCE, 2018, 4 (04): : 183 - 195
  • [5] Capacity Development of Research Ethics Administrators: Scoping Review
    Mulondo, Mutshidzi A.
    Tsoka-Gwegweni, Joyce M.
    LenkaBula, Puleng
    Chikobvu, Perpetual
    JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2022, 17 (04) : 515 - 524
  • [6] In defence of governance: ethics review and social research
    Sheehan, Mark
    Dunn, Michael
    Sahan, Kate
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2018, 44 (10) : 710 - 716
  • [7] The Defining Characteristics of Ethics Papers on Social Media Research: A Systematic Review of the Literature
    Al-Zaman, Md. Sayeed
    Khemka, Ayushi
    Zhang, Andy
    Rockwell, Geoffrey
    JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC ETHICS, 2024, 22 (01) : 163 - 189
  • [8] Making Autism Research Inclusive by Attending to Intersectionality: a Review of the Research Ethics Literature
    Cascio, M. A.
    Weiss, J. A.
    Racine, E.
    REVIEW JOURNAL OF AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS, 2021, 8 (01) : 22 - 36
  • [9] Adjusting the focus: A public health ethics approach to data research
    Ballantyne, Angela
    BIOETHICS, 2019, 33 (03) : 357 - 366
  • [10] The concept of ′vulnerability′ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines
    Bracken-Roche, Dearbhail
    Bell, Emily
    Macdonald, Mary Ellen
    Racine, Eric
    HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2017, 15