• 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

将卫生保健工作者纳入新冠病毒研究的伦理考量。

Ethical Inclusion of Health Care Workers in Covid-19 Research.

机构信息

John Russell Dickson, MD Presidential Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Director of clinical research compliance at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

出版信息

Ethics Hum Res. 2021 Mar;43(2):19-27. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500082. Epub 2021 Feb 9.

DOI:10.1002/eahr.500082
PMID:33565280
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8013480/
Abstract

Employees are often considered a vulnerable research population due to concerns about consent and confidentiality, but there is insufficient guidance regarding their ethical inclusion in research. In the context of Covid-19, frontline health care workers comprise a particularly relevant research population in light of their risks of viral exposure and psychological strain, among other factors. They may therefore be targeted for research conducted at their place of employment and benefit from participating in such research. Beyond Covid-19, there are other circumstances in which health care workers may be considered for inclusion in research conducted by or with the involvement of their colleagues and employers. As investigators, sponsors, institutional review boards, and others assess the ethical permissibility of these scenarios, as well as relevant protections, we recommend systematic consideration of social and scientific value, validity, fairness, risks and benefits, voluntary consent, respect, and independent review. There is often good reason to specifically target health care workers for inclusion in Covid-19 research (beyond convenience), and they should not be excluded from research offering the prospect of direct benefit. However, additional safeguards may be necessary in employer-based research to avoid scientific bias, promote voluntariness, and solicit stakeholder input. Research personnel should be permitted to enroll in their own Covid-19 studies only when participation offers them the prospect of unique benefits.

摘要

员工通常被认为是脆弱的研究人群,因为人们担心他们的同意和保密问题,但对于将他们纳入研究的伦理问题,没有足够的指导。在新冠疫情背景下,鉴于前线医护人员面临病毒暴露和心理压力等风险,他们是一个特别相关的研究人群,因此可能会成为在其工作场所进行的研究的目标人群,并从参与此类研究中受益。除了新冠疫情之外,在其他情况下,医护人员也可能被考虑纳入由其同事和雇主参与或进行的研究。随着调查人员、赞助商、机构审查委员会和其他人评估这些情况的伦理可允许性以及相关保护措施,我们建议系统地考虑社会和科学价值、有效性、公平性、风险和收益、自愿同意、尊重和独立审查。出于(不仅仅是方便的原因)将医护人员特别纳入新冠疫情研究通常是有充分理由的,他们不应被排除在提供直接受益前景的研究之外。然而,在基于雇主的研究中可能需要采取额外的保障措施,以避免科学偏见、促进自愿性并征求利益相关者的意见。只有当参与研究为研究人员提供独特的受益前景时,才应允许他们参与自己的新冠疫情研究。

相似文献

1
Ethical Inclusion of Health Care Workers in Covid-19 Research.将卫生保健工作者纳入新冠病毒研究的伦理考量。
Ethics Hum Res. 2021 Mar;43(2):19-27. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500082. Epub 2021 Feb 9.
2
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.
3
Ethical Considerations for Enrolling "Invested Parties" in Large-Scale Clinical Studies: Insights from the RECOVER Initiative.大型临床研究中纳入“利益相关方”的伦理考量:RECOVER 倡议的启示。
Ethics Hum Res. 2024 Sep-Oct;46(5):2-12. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500221.
4
Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review.在疾病爆发、流行或大流行期间及之后,为支持一线卫生和社会护理专业人员的适应能力和心理健康所采取的干预措施:一项混合方法的系统评价
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 5;11(11):CD013779. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013779.
5
Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees.COVID-19临床研究伦理面临的挑战及建议解决方案:德国研究伦理委员会的现状分析
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jul 19;22(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00666-8.
6
A Call for Better, Not Faster, Research Ethics Committee Reviews in the Covid-19 Era.呼吁在新冠疫情时代加强而不是加速研究伦理委员会审查。
Ethics Hum Res. 2021 Sep;43(5):42-44. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500104.
7
Adherence with reporting of ethical standards in COVID-19 human studies: a rapid review.COVID-19人体研究中伦理标准报告的依从性:快速综述
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jun 28;22(1):80. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00649-9.
8
Gurus and Griots: Revisiting the research informed consent process in rural African contexts.导师与吟游诗人:在非洲农村背景下重新审视以研究为基础的知情同意过程。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jul 23;22(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00659-7.
9
Human Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From Behind-the-Scenes.新冠疫情期间的人类研究:幕后观察。
Narrat Inq Bioeth. 2021;11(1):47-53. doi: 10.1353/nib.2021.0020.
10
Microbicide research in developing countries: have we given the ethical concerns due consideration?发展中国家的杀微生物剂研究:我们是否对伦理问题给予了充分考虑?
BMC Med Ethics. 2007 Sep 19;8:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-10.

引用本文的文献

1
Ethical Considerations for Enrolling "Invested Parties" in Large-Scale Clinical Studies: Insights from the RECOVER Initiative.大型临床研究中纳入“利益相关方”的伦理考量:RECOVER 倡议的启示。
Ethics Hum Res. 2024 Sep-Oct;46(5):2-12. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500221.
2
A phase 3, randomised, observer-blinded, placebo controlled-trial evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of investigational SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine CVnCoV in adult healthcare workers in Mainz (Germany).一项3期随机、观察者盲法、安慰剂对照试验,评估研究性SARS-CoV-2 mRNA疫苗CVnCoV在德国美因茨成年医护人员中的安全性和免疫原性。
Vaccine X. 2024 Jun 20;19:100512. doi: 10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100512. eCollection 2024 Aug.
3
A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.非洲突发公共卫生事件中的伦理审查流程的范围综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 May 22;25(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01054-8.

本文引用的文献

1
In Pursuit of PPE.对个人防护装备的追求
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):e46. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2010025. Epub 2020 Apr 17.
2
Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19.新冠疫情期间稀缺医疗资源的公平分配
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2049-2055. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114. Epub 2020 Mar 23.
3
Enrolling study personnel in Ebola vaccine trials: from guidelines to practice in a non-epidemic context.招募研究人员参与埃博拉疫苗试验:从指南到非流行环境下的实践。
Trials. 2019 Jul 11;20(1):422. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3487-0.
4
Protecting clinical trial participants and study integrity in the age of social media.在社交媒体时代保护临床试验参与者及研究的完整性。
Cancer. 2018 Dec 15;124(24):4610-4617. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31748. Epub 2018 Oct 17.
5
Review of Scientific Self-Experimentation: Ethics History, Regulation, Scenarios, and Views Among Ethics Committees and Prominent Scientists.科学自我实验综述:伦理、历史、监管、案例以及伦理委员会和杰出科学家的观点
Rejuvenation Res. 2019 Feb;22(1):31-42. doi: 10.1089/rej.2018.2059. Epub 2018 Aug 8.
6
Paying Research Participants: Regulatory Uncertainty, Conceptual Confusion, and a Path Forward.支付研究参与者:监管不确定性、概念混淆及前进之路。
Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2017 Winter;17(1):61-141.
7
A pragmatic analysis of vulnerability in clinical research.临床研究中脆弱性的务实分析。
Bioethics. 2017 Sep;31(7):515-525. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12367.
8
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.
9
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.
10
Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism.临床研究中的误解:区分治疗性误解、治疗性误判和治疗性乐观。
IRB. 2003 Jan-Feb;25(1):11-6.