Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions

被引:0
作者
Boris Handal
Chris Campbell
Kevin Watson
Marguerite Maher
Keagan Brewer
Anne-Marie Irwin
Marc Fellman
机构
[1] The University of Notre Dame Australia,
[2] Griffith University,undefined
[3] Edith Cowan University,undefined
来源
Monash Bioethics Review | 2021年 / 39卷
关键词
Ethics; Review; HREC; Research; Perceptions;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members’ perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants’ risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members’ beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants’ welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:94 / 114
页数:20
相关论文
共 215 条
[21]  
Khoshnood K(2005)Paying research participants: A study of current practices in Australia Journal of Medical Ethics 31 542-177
[22]  
Stopka T(2001)For love or money? An exploratory study of why injecting drug users participate in research Addiction 96 1319-581
[23]  
Shaw S(2006)Beyond consent: The potential for atrocity Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 175-230
[24]  
Santelices C(2005)Protecting researchers is not the role of HRECs Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 29 580-49
[25]  
Singer M(2006)Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research Health Services Research 41 214-414
[26]  
Chilengi R(2001)Mission impossible? Developing best practice guidelines for institutional ethics committees (IECs) in Greater Sydney Collegian 8 8-152
[27]  
Daly J(2012)Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7 38-439
[28]  
Bandyopadhyay M(2004)Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics Qualitative Sociology. 27 391-109
[29]  
Riggs E(2006)Australia needs an office of academic integrity The Medical Journal of Australia 185 619-1420
[30]  
Williamson L(2015)Unpacking the beliefs and attitudes of Australian HREC members: An examination of influences on reviewer decision-making Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations 9 139-173