Suppr超能文献

研究者对整群随机试验中伦理挑战的看法:定性分析。

Researchers' perceptions of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials: a qualitative analysis.

机构信息

Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, Rm C231, 1403 - 29 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada.

出版信息

Trials. 2013 Jan 3;14:1. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) pose ethical challenges for investigators and ethics committees. This study describes the views and experiences of CRT researchers with respect to: (1) ethical challenges in CRTs; (2) the ethics review process for CRTs; and (3) the need for comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs.

METHODS

Descriptive qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with a purposive sample of 20 experienced CRT researchers.

RESULTS

Informants expressed concern over the potential for bias that may result from requirements to obtain informed consent from research participants in CRTs. Informants suggested that the need for informed consent ought to be related to the type of intervention under study in a CRT. Informants rarely expressed concern regarding risks to research participants in CRTs, other than risks to privacy. Important issues identified in the research ethics literature, including fair subject selection and other justice issues, were not mentioned by informants. The ethics review process has had positive and negative impacts on CRT conduct. Informants stated that variability in ethics review between jurisdictions, and increasingly stringent ethics review in recent years, have hampered their ability to conduct CRTs. Many informants said that comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs would be helpful to researchers and research ethics committees.

CONCLUSIONS

Informants identified key ethical challenges in the conduct of CRTs, specifically relating to identifying subjects, seeking informed consent, and the use of gatekeepers. These data have since been used to identify topics for in-depth ethical analysis and to guide the development of comprehensive ethics guidelines for CRTs.

摘要

背景

整群随机试验(cluster randomized trials,CRTs)给研究者和伦理委员会带来了伦理挑战。本研究描述了 CRT 研究者对于以下方面的观点和经验:(1)CRTs 中的伦理挑战;(2)CRTs 的伦理审查流程;(3)CRTs 全面伦理指南的需求。

方法

对 20 名有经验的 CRT 研究者进行了目的抽样访谈,采用描述性定性分析。

结果

受访者对 CRT 中因需要从研究参与者处获得知情同意而可能产生的偏倚表示关注。受访者建议,CRTs 中知情同意的必要性应与研究中干预措施的类型相关。受访者很少对 CRT 中研究参与者的风险表示担忧,除了对隐私的风险。在研究伦理文献中确定的重要问题,包括公平的受试者选择和其他正义问题,都没有被受访者提及。伦理审查流程对 CRT 的实施产生了积极和消极的影响。受访者表示,不同司法管辖区之间的伦理审查存在差异,以及近年来越来越严格的伦理审查,阻碍了他们开展 CRT 的能力。许多受访者表示,CRTs 的全面伦理指南将对研究人员和研究伦理委员会有帮助。

结论

受访者确定了 CRT 实施中的关键伦理挑战,特别是与识别受试者、寻求知情同意和使用把关人有关。这些数据后来被用于确定深入伦理分析的主题,并指导 CRT 全面伦理指南的制定。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

4
Financial impact of the hospital pharmacy's participation in clinical trials.医院药房参与临床试验的财务影响。
Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2021 Nov;28(Suppl 2):e185-e190. doi: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-002601. Epub 2021 Jun 8.

本文引用的文献

9
Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.定性内容分析的三种方法。
Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277-88. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
10
Cluster randomized controlled trials.整群随机对照试验
J Eval Clin Pract. 2005 Oct;11(5):479-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00568.x.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验