University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Palliat Med. 2010 Mar;24(2):111-26. doi: 10.1177/0269216309352714. Epub 2009 Dec 4.
The quality of research, and the resulting quality of evidence available to guide palliative care, is dependent on the ethical decisions underpinning its design, conduct and report. Whilst much has been published debating the ethics of palliative care research, an assessment of the quality and synthesis of the central debates is not available. Such a review is timely to inform research governance. The methodology of this study is based on the principles of systematic reviews. Fifty-seven papers were reviewed following a thorough search, and were critically appraised for their literary quality, the knowledge on which they drew and the research standards they addressed. The debates identified address vulnerability, moral appropriateness, consent, gate-keeping and inclusion and research culture. The quality of debate and the sources of knowledge varied. The debate was rich in quality and knowledge with respect to the protection of the dignity, rights and safety of research participants, but less developed in relation to those of researchers and other staff. There is also little debate about the ethics of reporting of research and the ethics underpinning research leadership. A framework is offered that reconciles the ethical issues raised with potential methodological strategies identified from the review.
研究的质量,以及为指导姑息治疗而提供的证据的质量,取决于其设计、实施和报告所依据的伦理决策。虽然已经发表了很多关于姑息治疗研究伦理的文章,但对于核心争论的质量评估和综合分析尚未提供。这种审查对于告知研究治理是及时的。本研究的方法基于系统评价的原则。经过彻底搜索,共审查了 57 篇论文,并对其文学质量、所依据的知识以及所涉及的研究标准进行了批判性评估。确定的争论涉及脆弱性、道德适当性、同意、把关和纳入以及研究文化。辩论的质量和知识来源各不相同。关于保护研究参与者的尊严、权利和安全,辩论的质量和知识都很丰富,但关于研究人员和其他工作人员的辩论则不太发达。关于研究报告的伦理和研究领导的伦理基础的争论也很少。本文提出了一个框架,将提出的伦理问题与从审查中确定的潜在方法策略相协调。