• 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
Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges.挪威的研究伦理监督:结构、功能与挑战。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 10;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3816-0.
2
Law, ethics and research ethics committees.法律、伦理与研究伦理委员会。
Med Law. 2002;21(1):57-75.
3
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
4
Research ethics committees and post-approval activities: a qualitative study on the perspectives of European research ethics committee representatives.研究伦理委员会与批准后活动:一项关于欧洲研究伦理委员会代表观点的定性研究
Curr Med Res Opin. 2022 Nov;38(11):1897-1907. doi: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2115773. Epub 2022 Aug 27.
5
The Norwegian national project for ethics support in community health and care services.挪威社区卫生与护理服务伦理支持国家项目。
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Nov 8;17(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0158-5.
6
[Responsibility and function of Research Ethics Committees].[研究伦理委员会的职责与功能]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2009 Apr;52(4):387-93. doi: 10.1007/s00103-009-0824-6.
7
Culture of Care: Organizational Responsibilities关怀文化:组织职责
8
Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters.书面工作:研究伦理委员会信件的社会功能。
Soc Sci Med. 2007 Aug;65(4):792-802. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.046. Epub 2007 May 8.
9
Real-time Responsiveness for Ethics Oversight During Disaster Research.灾难研究期间伦理监督的实时响应能力
Bioethics. 2015 Nov;29(9):653-61. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12193.
10
Stepped-wedge trials should be classified as research for the purpose of ethical review.为进行伦理审查,阶梯楔形试验应归类为研究。
Clin Trials. 2019 Dec;16(6):580-588. doi: 10.1177/1740774519873322.

引用本文的文献

1
Turning nursing students' mistakes into resources for learning in simulation-based training: facilitators' assumptions about providing feedback in debriefing.将护理专业学生在模拟训练中的错误转化为学习资源:促进者在总结汇报中提供反馈的假设
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jan 16;25(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06628-z.
2
Individual supported work placements (ReISE) for improving sustained return to work in unemployed people with persistent pain: an internal pilot study of a cohort randomised controlled approach.个体支持性工作安置(ReISE)对改善慢性疼痛失业者持续重返工作岗位的效果:一项队列随机对照方法的内部试点研究
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2024 Aug 13;10(1):110. doi: 10.1186/s40814-024-01538-9.
3
Developing a virtual reality (VR) application for practicing the ABCDE approach for systematic clinical observation.开发虚拟现实 (VR) 应用程序,用于练习 ABCDE 方法进行系统临床观察。
BMC Med Educ. 2023 Sep 5;23(1):639. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04625-2.
4
Parenteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer: The Healthcare Providers' Perspective.晚期癌症患者的肠外营养:医疗服务提供者的观点
Oncol Ther. 2022 Jun;10(1):211-223. doi: 10.1007/s40487-022-00189-1. Epub 2022 Feb 24.

本文引用的文献

1
Do no harm: no psychological harm from colorectal cancer screening.勿施伤害:结直肠癌筛查无心理伤害。
Br J Cancer. 2016 Mar 1;114(5):497-504. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.14. Epub 2016 Feb 11.
2
[Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals].[关于医学期刊中学术作品的撰写、报告、编辑及发表的建议]
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2014 Oct;22(10):781-91.
3
Guidance on priority setting in health care (GPS-Health): the inclusion of equity criteria not captured by cost-effectiveness analysis.医疗保健中的优先事项设定指南(GPS-Health):纳入成本效益分析未涵盖的公平标准。
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014 Aug 29;12:18. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-12-18. eCollection 2014.
4
The establishment of ethical committees for medical research.医学研究伦理委员会的设立。
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2012 Jun 26;132(12-13):1486-9. doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.12.0311.
5
Clinical ethics committees in Norway: what do they do, and does it make a difference?挪威的临床伦理委员会:它们做什么,又有作用吗?
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2011 Jul;20(3):389-95. doi: 10.1017/S0963180111000077.
6
Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice.初步研究的设计与分析:良好实践建议
J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12. doi: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x.
7
HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION. CODE OF ETHICS OF THE WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. DECLARATION OF HELSINKI.人体实验。世界医学协会伦理准则。赫尔辛基宣言。
Br Med J. 1964 Jul 18;2(5402):177. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.5402.177.
8
Health services research: an evolving definition of the field.卫生服务研究:该领域不断演变的定义。
Health Serv Res. 2002 Feb;37(1):7-9.
9
Mega-trials: methodological issues and clinical implications.大型试验:方法学问题及临床意义
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Mar-Apr;29(2):96-100.

挪威的研究伦理监督:结构、功能与挑战。

Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges.

作者信息

Froud R, Meza T J, Ernes K O, Slowther A M

机构信息

Department of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway.

Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jan 10;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3816-0.

DOI:10.1186/s12913-018-3816-0
PMID:30630475
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6327404/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

While the development and evaluation of clinical ethics services in Norway has been recognized internationally, the country's research ethics infrastructure at times may have been less well developed. In 2016, media interest in the controversial nature of some health services research and pilot studies highlighted gaps in the system with certain types of research having no clear mechanisms through which they may be given due independent consideration. It is not clear that new legislation, implemented in 2017, will address this problem. We explore relevant law, committee scope, and the function of the system. We show that 1) Norwegian law provides for ethics assessment for all forms of health research; 2) regional RECs in Norway might not have always enforced this provision, considering some interventional health services research to be outside their remit; and 3) Norwegian law does not explicity provide for local/university RECs, meaning that, in practice, there may be no readily accessible mechanisms for the assessment of research that is excluded by regional RECs. This may include health services research, pilot studies, and undergraduate research. New 2017 legislation has no effect on this specifically but focuses on institutions regulating researcher activity. This may place researchers in the difficult situation of on one hand, needing to hold to recognized ethical standards, while on the other, not readily having access to independent committee scrutiny to facilitate consistent operation with these standards.

CONCLUSION

To support researchers in Norway and to protect the public, it may be necessary either to widen the regional RECs' remit or to make legislative alterations that permit and do not discourage the existence of local RECs.

摘要

背景

尽管挪威临床伦理服务的发展和评估在国际上得到认可,但其国家研究伦理基础设施有时可能发展得不够完善。2016年,媒体对一些卫生服务研究和试点研究的争议性质的关注凸显了该系统的漏洞,某些类型的研究没有明确的机制来给予其应有的独立审议。尚不清楚2017年实施的新立法能否解决这一问题。我们探讨了相关法律、委员会范围和该系统的功能。我们发现:1)挪威法律规定对所有形式的卫生研究进行伦理评估;2)挪威的地区伦理审查委员会可能并非一直执行这一规定,认为一些介入性卫生服务研究不在其职权范围内;3)挪威法律没有明确规定地方/大学伦理审查委员会,这意味着在实践中,对于被地区伦理审查委员会排除的研究,可能没有现成的评估机制。这可能包括卫生服务研究、试点研究和本科研究。2017年的新立法对此没有具体影响,但侧重于规范研究人员活动的机构。这可能使研究人员陷入两难境地,一方面需要遵守公认的伦理标准,另一方面又难以获得独立委员会的审查以促进与这些标准的一致操作。

结论

为了支持挪威的研究人员并保护公众,可能有必要扩大地区伦理审查委员会的职权范围,或者进行立法修改,允许并鼓励地方伦理审查委员会的存在。