Surrogate Practices in Research in the Absence of a Research Ethics Committee: A Qualitative Study

被引:0
作者
Abrera, Anna Marie C. [1 ]
Pagkatipunan, Paulo Maria N. [2 ]
Limson, Elisa Bernadette E. [3 ]
机构
[1] Philippine Christian Univ, Dept Social Sci, Manila, Philippines
[2] Univ Philippines, Coll Med, Manila, Philippines
[3] St Scholast Coll, Ctr Res & Inst Planning, Manila, Philippines
关键词
Surrogate practices; Ethics review; Research Ethics Committee (REC); Qualitative study;
D O I
10.1007/s10805-021-09443-z
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The establishment of a Research Ethics Committee (REC) is a significant step to ensure the standard procedures in ethics review process that protect human participants. However, in instances when RECs are not yet established, surrogate activities are practiced by some institutions. The objective of this study was to identify prevailing research ethical practices of research directors and faculty researchers in the absence of a research ethics committee in their respective academic institutions. Specifically, it aimed to explore the participants' 1) experiences in research subject protection and 2) challenges when there is no existing REC in the institution. Participants were selected from universities in Manila City whose institutions did not have RECs at the time of the conduct of this study. Key informant interviews and focus group discussions were used as approaches for data collection. The authors used NVivo to organize data from the transcribed audio-recorded interviews and were analyzed utilizing a basic interpretive qualitative approach. Based on the results, surrogate practices of participants involved (1) providing "informed consent forms" to target participants and the (2) roles of different personalities in the evaluation/conduct of the research paper. Implications of this study and recommendations were likewise discussed in this paper.
引用
收藏
页码:139 / 153
页数:15
相关论文
共 29 条
[11]   Phronesis: Beyond the Research Ethics CommitteeA Crucial Decision-Making Skill for Health Researchers During Community Research [J].
Greeff, Minrie ;
Rennie, Stuart .
JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2016, 11 (02) :170-179
[12]   HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES: EXAMINING THEIR ROLES AND PRACTICES [J].
Guillemin, Marilys ;
Gillam, Lynn ;
Rosenthal, Doreen ;
Bolitho, Annie .
JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2012, 7 (03) :38-49
[13]  
Haggerty K. D., 2004, QUAL SOCIOL, V27
[14]  
Hunter D., 2014, RES ETHICS, V10, P66, DOI [10.1177/1747016114542213, DOI 10.1177/1747016114542213]
[15]   Improving quality of the informed consent process: Developing an easy-to-read, multimodal, patient-centered format in a real-world setting [J].
Lindsley, Karen A. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2019, 102 (05) :944-951
[16]   A Non-Paternalistic Model of Research Ethics and Oversight: Assessing the Benefits of Prospective Review [J].
London, Alex John .
JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS, 2012, 40 (04) :930-944
[17]  
Markham A., 2015, ENCY SOCIAL BEHAV SC, P606, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.11027-X
[18]   Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research? [J].
Newson, Ainsley J. ;
Lipworth, Wendy .
HEALTH PROMOTION JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2015, 26 (03) :170-175
[19]   A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review [J].
Nicholls, Stuart G. ;
Hayes, Tavis P. ;
Brehaut, Jamie C. ;
McDonald, Michael ;
Weijer, Charles ;
Saginur, Raphael ;
Fergusson, Dean .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (07)
[20]   Informed consent: Issues and challenges [J].
Nijhawan, Lokesh P. ;
Muddukrishna, B. S. ;
Bhat, K. M. ;
Bairy, K. L. ;
Udupa, N. ;
Musmade, Prashant B. ;
Janodia, Manthan D. .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH, 2013, 4 (03) :134-140