• 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

瑞士伦理审批需求的不确定性:混合方法研究。

Uncertainties about the need for ethics approval in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.

Department of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Basel and University Hospital Basel, Switzerland / Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Switzerland / Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Germany.

出版信息

Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Aug 12;150:w20318. doi: 10.4414/smw.2020.20318. eCollection 2020 Aug 10.

DOI:10.4414/smw.2020.20318
PMID:32799307
Abstract

BACKGROUND

To ensure ethical oversight, researchers wanting to conduct “research” involving human beings are typically required to obtain prior approval from an independent ethics committee. However, it can sometimes be unclear if a project needs to be submitted for ethics approval. Swiss researchers can contact research ethics committees via a “jurisdictional inquiry” for clarification whether a project needs to be submitted for ethics approval.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

(1) To examine the characteristics of Swiss jurisdictional inquiries, and (2) to identify possible uncertainties regarding the correct interpretation of existing legislation in Switzerland.

METHODS

All jurisdictional inquiries submitted to Swiss research ethics committees between July and December 2017 were reviewed using qualitative content analysis. We then conducted an online survey between June 2018 and July 2018 with all researchers who had submitted a jurisdictional inquiry including a descriptive quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

The review included 271 jurisdictional inquiries. Analysis identified three groups of jurisdictional inquiries: 80.4% (218/271) sought clarification whether the project had to be submitted for ethical approval; 18.5% (50/271) requested a “declaration of no objection”; and 1.1% (3/271) asked for a clarification about which of the two ordinances was applicable to the project. Analysis identified eight distinct legal issues that appeared to be the main cause for a number of jurisdictional inquiries, with the two most frequently identified issues being whether the project will produce generalisable knowledge, and whether the project uses fully anonymised data. Overall, research ethics committees decided that 78.6% (213/271) of the jurisdictional inquiries were outside their jurisdiction and did not require ethical approval, and that 15.6% required submission for ethical approval. The online survey achieved a 56.8% response rate. The majority of respondents (94/166; 56.6%) reported that all the questions they were asked during the submission of the jurisdictional inquiry were easy to understand. Respondents reported that 88% (147/166) of all projects were started or planned to start. The vast majority (154/166; 93%) of respondents also agreed with the decisions made by the research ethics committee.

CONCLUSIONS

Jurisdictional inquiries are an important means for researchers to clarify whether their project requires ethical oversight. However, this mixed-methods study has identified some difficulties in the interpretation of legal terms, which often reflect persistent structural issues that many other countries also face. More detailed guidance may be helpful to reduce the researchers’ uncertainties and ethics committees’ workloads in relation to jurisdictional inquiries.

摘要

背景

为了确保伦理监督,希望进行“研究”的研究人员通常需要获得独立伦理委员会的事先批准。然而,有时尚不清楚项目是否需要提交伦理批准。瑞士研究人员可以通过“管辖权查询”联系研究伦理委员会,以澄清项目是否需要提交伦理批准。

目的

(1)检查瑞士管辖权查询的特征,(2)确定瑞士现有立法的正确解释方面可能存在的不确定性。

方法

对 2017 年 7 月至 12 月期间提交给瑞士研究伦理委员会的所有管辖权查询进行了审查,并使用定性内容分析进行了审查。然后,我们于 2018 年 6 月至 7 月期间对所有提交管辖权查询的研究人员进行了在线调查,包括描述性定量分析。

结果

审查包括 271 项管辖权查询。分析确定了三组管辖权查询:80.4%(218/271)寻求澄清项目是否必须提交伦理批准;18.5%(50/271)要求“不反对声明”;1.1%(3/271)要求澄清适用该项目的两项条例中的哪一项。分析确定了八个不同的法律问题,这些问题似乎是许多管辖权查询的主要原因,其中两个最常被确定的问题是项目是否会产生可推广的知识,以及项目是否使用完全匿名数据。总体而言,研究伦理委员会决定,78.6%(213/271)的管辖权查询超出了其管辖范围,无需伦理批准,而 15.6%需要提交伦理批准。在线调查的回应率为 56.8%。大多数受访者(94/166;56.6%)表示,他们在提交管辖权查询时提出的所有问题都很容易理解。受访者报告说,88%(147/166)的项目已经开始或计划开始。绝大多数(154/166;93%)的受访者也同意研究伦理委员会的决定。

结论

管辖权查询是研究人员澄清其项目是否需要伦理监督的重要手段。然而,这项混合方法研究发现,在解释法律术语方面存在一些困难,这通常反映了许多其他国家也面临的持续结构性问题。更详细的指导可能有助于减少研究人员的不确定性和伦理委员会在管辖权查询方面的工作量。

相似文献

1
Uncertainties about the need for ethics approval in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study.瑞士伦理审批需求的不确定性:混合方法研究。
Swiss Med Wkly. 2020 Aug 12;150:w20318. doi: 10.4414/smw.2020.20318. eCollection 2020 Aug 10.
2
Identification of ethics committees based on authors' disclosures: cross-sectional study of articles published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology and a survey of ethics committees.基于作者披露信息识别伦理委员会:对发表于《欧洲麻醉学杂志》的文章的横断面研究及对伦理委员会的调查
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 8;19(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0289-y.
3
The ethical oversight of learning health care activities in Switzerland: a qualitative study.瑞士学习型医疗保健活动的伦理监督:一项定性研究。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2019 Oct 31;31(8):G81-G86. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzz045.
4
Research projects in human genetics in Switzerland: analysis of research protocols submitted to cantonal ethics committees in 2018.瑞士人类遗传学研究项目:2018 年向州伦理委员会提交的研究方案分析。
Swiss Med Wkly. 2021 Jan 17;151:w20403. doi: 10.4414/smw.2021.20403. eCollection 2021 Jan 18.
5
Challenges in the research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: international survey of investigators.群组随机对照试验研究伦理审查的挑战:对研究者的国际调查。
Clin Trials. 2013 Apr;10(2):257-68. doi: 10.1177/1740774513475530.
6
Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand.少数民族人群参与的研究中的伦理问题:泰国玛希隆大学热带医学院伦理委员会审查方案的过程和结果。
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Sep 11;14:33. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-33.
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
Research ethics committee approval as reported for abstracts submitted to the annual Euroanaesthesia meeting.研究伦理委员会批准,如提交给欧洲麻醉学年会的摘要报告所述。
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Dec;34(12):824-830. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000669.
9
Multi-centre ethics and research governance review can impede non-interventional clinical research.多中心伦理和研究治理审查可能会阻碍非干预性临床研究。
Intern Med J. 2019 Jun;49(6):722-728. doi: 10.1111/imj.14158.
10
Can we do better? Researchers' experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus.我们能做得更好吗?研究人员在以晚年生活为重点的项目中与伦理审查委员会的经历。
J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;43(3):701-7. doi: 10.3233/JAD-141956.

引用本文的文献

1
Health data privacy through homomorphic encryption and distributed ledger computing: an ethical-legal qualitative expert assessment study.通过同态加密和分布式账本计算实现健康数据隐私保护:一项伦理法律定性专家评估研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Dec 1;23(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00852-2.
2
Alteration of Relative Rates of Biodegradation and Regeneration of Cervical Spine Cartilage through the Restoration of Arterial Blood Flow Access to Rhomboid Fossa: A Hypothesis.通过恢复菱形窝的动脉血流来改变颈椎软骨的生物降解和再生相对速率:一种假说。
Polymers (Basel). 2021 Dec 3;13(23):4248. doi: 10.3390/polym13234248.
3
Barriers and Facilitating Factors for Conducting Systematic Evidence Assessments in Academic Clinical Trials.
在学术临床试验中进行系统证据评估的障碍和促进因素。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2136577. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36577.
4
Practices and Attitudes of Swiss Stakeholders Regarding Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trial Funding Acquisition and Cost Management.瑞士利益攸关方在研究者发起的临床试验资助获取和成本管理方面的实践和态度。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2111847. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.11847.