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
  • [21] Focus Group Interviews in Child, Youth, and Parent Research: An Integrative Literature Review
    Adler, Kristin
    Salantera, Sanna
    Zumstein-Shaha, Maya
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE METHODS, 2019, 18
  • [22] Social entrepreneurship as a collaborative practice: Literature review and research agenda
    Kovanen, Sunna
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATION, 2021, 17 (01) : 97 - 128
  • [23] Enhancing Reciprocity, Equity and Quality of Ethics Review for Multisite Research During Public Health Crises: The Experience of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition Ethics Working Group
    Rahimzadeh, Vasiliki
    Ambe, Jennyfer
    de Vries, Jantina
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS, 2023, 51 (02) : 258 - 270
  • [24] What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis
    Paramasivan, Sangeetha
    Davies, Philippa
    Richards, Alison
    Wade, Julia
    Rooshenas, Leila
    Mills, Nicola
    Realpe, Alba
    Raj, Jeffrey Pradeep
    Subramani, Supriya
    Ives, Jonathan
    Huxtable, Richard
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    Donovan, Jenny L.
    [J]. BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 2021, 6 (05):
  • [25] The Investigator's Dilemma - A Review of Social Media Analytics Research Ethics in Information Systems
    Marx, Julian
    Mirbabaie, Milad
    [J]. AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2022, 26
  • [26] Qualitative health research and procedural ethics: An interview study to investigate researchers' ways of navigating the demands of medical research ethics committees in Germany
    Potthoff, Sarah
    Roth, Fee
    Scholten, Matthe
    [J]. RESEARCH ETHICS, 2024, 20 (02) : 388 - 410
  • [27] Making research ethics work for global health: towards a more agile and collaborative approach
    Chattopadhyay, Sreeparna
    de Kok, Bregje
    [J]. BMJ GLOBAL HEALTH, 2023, 8 (07):
  • [28] A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review
    Adjovi, Ingrid Sonya Mawussi
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN RESEARCH METRICS AND ANALYTICS, 2025, 10
  • [29] Australian social work research on ageing and aged care: A scoping review
    Hughes, Mark
    Bigby, Christine
    Tilbury, Clare
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK, 2018, 18 (04) : 431 - 450
  • [30] Research ethics and refugee health: a review of reported considerations and applications in published refugee health literature, 2015-2018
    Seagle, Emma E.
    Dam, Amanda J.
    Shah, Priti P.
    Webster, Jessica L.
    Barrett, Drue H.
    Ortmann, Leonard W.
    Cohen, Nicole J.
    Marano, Nina N.
    [J]. CONFLICT AND HEALTH, 2020, 14 (01)