• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
The ethics of relationality in implementation and evaluation research in global health: reflections from the Dream-A-World program in Kingston, Jamaica.全球卫生实施与评估研究中的关系伦理:来自牙买加金斯敦“梦想世界”项目的思考
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 15;19(Suppl 1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0282-5.
2
Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives.全球卫生系统应对针对妇女暴力研究中的伦理挑战:一项针对政策和专业观点的定性研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Mar 19;25(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01034-y.
3
Making research ethics work for global health: towards a more agile and collaborative approach.让研究伦理为全球健康服务:迈向更灵活、更协作的方法。
BMJ Glob Health. 2023 Jul;8(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011415.
4
Beyond Compliance Checking: A Situated Approach to Visual Research Ethics.超越合规检查:一种情境化的视觉研究伦理方法。
J Bioeth Inq. 2018 Jun;15(2):293-303. doi: 10.1007/s11673-018-9850-0. Epub 2018 Mar 19.
5
How to navigate the application of ethics norms in global health research: reflections based on qualitative research conducted with people with disabilities in Uganda.如何在全球健康研究中运用伦理规范:基于在乌干达开展的残疾人定性研究的思考。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Oct 18;22(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00710-7.
6
Global health ethics: critical reflections on the contours of an emerging field, 1977-2015.全球健康伦理:对一个新兴领域轮廓的批判性反思,1977-2015 年。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jul 25;20(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12910-019-0391-9.
7
Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol.制定医疗保健中实用临床试验的伦理设计和实施框架:混合方法研究方案。
Trials. 2018 Sep 27;19(1):525. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2895-x.
8
Human Participants in Engineering Research: Notes from a Fledgling Ethics Committee.工程研究中的人类受试者:一个初创伦理委员会的笔记
Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Aug;21(4):1033-48. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9568-2. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
9
How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review.我们如何知道研究伦理委员会真的在发挥作用?结果评估在研究伦理审查中被忽视的作用。
BMC Med Ethics. 2008 Mar 28;9:6. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-6.
10
Ethics beyond ethics: the need for virtuous researchers.超越伦理的伦理:对有德行研究者的需求。
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 15;19(Suppl 1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0281-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Decolonial framework for applying reflexivity and positionality in global health research.用于在全球健康研究中应用反思性和定位性的去殖民化框架。
Glob Health Promot. 2024 Jun;31(2):52-58. doi: 10.1177/17579759241238016. Epub 2024 Apr 2.
2
No person left behind: Mapping the health policy landscape for genomics research in the Caribbean.一个都不能少:绘制加勒比地区基因组学研究的卫生政策蓝图。
Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022 Sep 18;15:100367. doi: 10.1016/j.lana.2022.100367. eCollection 2022 Nov.
3
A systematic review on ethical challenges of 'field' research in low-income and middle-income countries: respect, justice and beneficence for research staff?在低收入和中等收入国家开展“实地”研究的伦理挑战的系统评价:研究人员的尊重、公正和慈善?
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005380.
4
Re-thinking global and public health projects during the COVID-19 pandemic context: Considerations and recommendations for early- and not-so-early-career researchers.在新冠疫情背景下重新思考全球和公共卫生项目:对初出茅庐和经验稍丰富的研究人员的思考与建议
Soc Sci Humanit Open. 2020;2(1):100075. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100075. Epub 2020 Oct 21.

本文引用的文献

1
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
2
Research ethics in global mental health: advancing culturally responsive mental health research.全球精神卫生中的研究伦理:推进具有文化适应性的精神卫生研究
Transcult Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;51(6):790-805. doi: 10.1177/1363461514527491. Epub 2014 Mar 25.
3
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言:涉及人类受试者的医学研究伦理原则》
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
4
Beyond procedural ethics: foregrounding questions of justice in global health research ethics training for students.超越程序伦理:在面向学生的全球健康研究伦理培训中凸显正义问题。
Glob Public Health. 2013 Jul;8(6):713-24. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2013.796400. Epub 2013 May 24.
5
Promoting Resilience in High-risk Children in Jamaica: A Pilot Study of a Multimodal Intervention.促进牙买加高危儿童的适应力:一项多模式干预的试点研究。
J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2013 May;22(2):125-30.
6
The human capacity to reflect and decide: bioethics and the reconfiguration of the research subject in the British biomedical sciences.人类的反思和决策能力:英国生物医学科学中的生命伦理学与研究主体的再构建。
Soc Stud Sci. 2012 Jun;42(3):348-68. doi: 10.1177/0306312712439457.
7
Getting personal: ethics and identity in global health research.关注个体:全球健康研究中的伦理与身份认同。
Dev World Bioeth. 2011 Aug;11(2):82-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2011.00297.x. Epub 2011 Mar 22.
8
A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.儿童时期自我控制能力的梯度变化可以预测健康、财富和公共安全。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Feb 15;108(7):2693-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108. Epub 2011 Jan 24.
9
Ethics and best practice guidelines for training experiences in global health.全球健康培训经验的伦理和最佳实践指南。
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Dec;83(6):1178-82. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0527.
10
Fostering resilience in children at risk through a cultural therapy intervention in Kingston, Jamaica.通过牙买加金斯敦的文化疗法干预措施增强高危儿童的复原力。
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2009;20(4 Suppl):31-5. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0208.

全球卫生实施与评估研究中的关系伦理:来自牙买加金斯敦“梦想世界”项目的思考

The ethics of relationality in implementation and evaluation research in global health: reflections from the Dream-A-World program in Kingston, Jamaica.

作者信息

D'souza Nicole A, Guzder Jaswant, Hickling Frederick, Groleau Danielle

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, Division of Social and Transcultural Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

CARIMENSA (Caribbean Institute of Mental Health and Substance Abuse), University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 15;19(Suppl 1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0282-5.

DOI:10.1186/s12910-018-0282-5
PMID:29945592
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6020003/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite recent developments aimed at creating international guidelines for ethical global health research, critical disconnections remain between how global health research is conducted in the field and the institutional ethics frameworks intended to guide research practice.

DISCUSSION

In this paper we attempt to map out the ethical tensions likely to arise in global health fieldwork as researchers negotiate the challenges of balancing ethics committees' rules and bureaucracies with actual fieldwork processes in local contexts. Drawing from our research experiences with an implementation and evaluation project in Jamaica, we argue that ethical research is produced through negotiated spaces and reflexivity practices that are centred on relationships between researchers and study participants and which critically examine issues of positionality and power that emerge at multiple levels. In doing so, we position ethical research practice in global health as a dialectical movement between the spoken and unspoken, or, more generally, between operationalized rules and the embodied relational understanding of persons. Global health research ethics should be premised not upon passive accordance with existing guidelines on ethical conduct, but on tactile modes of knowing that rely upon being engaged with, and responsive to, research participants. Rather than focusing on the operationalization of ethical practice through forms and procedures, it is crucial that researchers recognize that each ethical dilemma encountered during fieldwork is unique and rooted in social contexts, interpersonal relationships, and personal narratives.

摘要

背景

尽管近期旨在制定全球卫生研究伦理国际准则的工作取得了进展,但全球卫生研究在实地的开展方式与旨在指导研究实践的机构伦理框架之间仍存在严重脱节。

讨论

在本文中,我们试图梳理全球卫生实地工作中可能出现的伦理紧张关系,因为研究人员在当地环境中应对平衡伦理委员会规则和官僚程序与实际实地工作过程的挑战。借鉴我们在牙买加一个实施和评估项目中的研究经验,我们认为,伦理研究是通过协商空间和反思性实践产生的,这些实践以研究人员与研究参与者之间的关系为中心,并批判性地审视在多个层面出现的位置性和权力问题。在此过程中,我们将全球卫生中的伦理研究实践定位为一种在言语与非言语之间,或者更一般地说,在实施的规则与对人的具体关系理解之间的辩证运动。全球卫生研究伦理不应以被动遵守现有伦理行为准则为前提,而应以依赖与研究参与者互动并对其做出回应的触觉认知模式为前提。研究人员不应将重点放在通过形式和程序来实施伦理实践上,认识到实地工作中遇到的每个伦理困境都是独特的,且植根于社会背景、人际关系和个人经历,这一点至关重要。