Rosenkrantz Andrew B, Ginocchio Luke A
Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016.
Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016.
Acad Radiol. 2016 Jul;23(7):823-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2016.02.016. Epub 2016 Apr 1.
The aim of the present study was to assess the potential usefulness of written instructional vignettes relating to publication and journalism ethics in radiology via a survey of radiology trainees.
A literature review was conducted to guide the development of vignettes, each describing a scenario relating to an ethical issue in research and publication, with subsequent commentary on the underlying ethical issue and potential approaches to its handling. Radiology trainees at a single institution were surveyed regarding the vignettes' perceived usefulness.
A total of 21 vignettes were prepared, addressing institutional review board and human subjects protection, authorship issues, usage of previous work, manuscript review, and other miscellaneous topics. Of the solicited trainees, 24.7% (16/65) completed the survey. On average among the vignettes, 94.0% of the participants found the vignette helpful; 19.9 received prior formal instruction on the issue during medical training; 40.0% received prior informal guidance from a research mentor; and 42.0% indicated that the issue had arisen in their own or a peer's prior research experience. The most common previously experienced specific issue was authorship order (93.8%). Free-text responses were largely favorable regarding the value of the vignettes, although also indicated numerous challenges in properly handling the ethical issues: impact of hierarchy, pressure to publish, internal politics, reluctance to conduct sensitive conversations with colleagues, and variability in journal and professional society policies.
Radiology trainees overall found the vignettes helpful, addressing commonly encountered topics for which formal and informal guidance were otherwise lacking. The vignettes are publicly available through the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) website and may foster greater insights by investigators into ethical aspects of the publication and journalism process, thus contributing to higher quality radiology research.
本研究旨在通过对放射科住院医师的调查,评估与放射学出版和新闻伦理相关的书面教学案例的潜在实用性。
进行文献综述以指导案例的编写,每个案例描述一个与研究和出版中的伦理问题相关的场景,并对潜在的伦理问题及其处理方法进行后续评论。对单一机构的放射科住院医师就案例的感知实用性进行了调查。
共编写了21个案例,涉及机构审查委员会和人体受试者保护、作者身份问题、先前工作的使用、稿件评审以及其他杂项主题。在被邀请的住院医师中,24.7%(16/65)完成了调查。在案例中,平均有94.0%的参与者认为案例有帮助;19.9%的人在医学培训期间接受过关于该问题的正式指导;40.0%的人从研究导师那里获得过非正式指导;42.0%的人表示该问题在他们自己或同行之前的研究经历中出现过。最常见的先前经历的具体问题是作者排序(93.8%)。尽管自由文本回复也指出了在妥善处理伦理问题方面存在许多挑战,如等级制度的影响、发表压力、内部政治、不愿与同事进行敏感对话以及期刊和专业协会政策的差异,但总体上对案例的价值评价较高。
放射科住院医师总体上认为案例有帮助,解决了通常遇到但缺乏正式和非正式指导的主题。这些案例可通过大学放射科医生协会(AUR)网站公开获取,可能会促进研究人员对出版和新闻过程伦理方面的更深入理解,从而有助于提高放射学研究质量。