Suppr超能文献

定义医疗保健研究中的伦理挑战:快速综述。

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review.

机构信息

Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Palliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Sep 29;22(1):135. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00700-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase 'ethical challenge(s)' appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature.

METHODS

Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining 'ethical challenge(s)' in any context, extracting data on definitions of 'ethical challenge(s)' in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher's Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021.

RESULTS

393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to 'ethical challenge(s)' within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of 'ethical challenge(s)', with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.

摘要

背景

尽管“伦理挑战”在学术研究中无处不在,但它似乎缺乏一个公认的定义。缺乏定义可能会导致混淆或可避免的偏见。概念的清晰性是理论和经验研究的关键组成部分。我们采用快速审查方法,旨在审查当前医疗保健研究文献中使用的“伦理挑战”及其密切相关术语的定义。

方法

快速审查以确定任何背景下审查“伦理挑战”的同行评议报告,提取使用中的“伦理挑战”定义的数据,并在一般手稿文本中使用密切相关术语的同义用法。使用内容分析对数据进行分析。从 2016 年 4 月至 2021 年 4 月,在四个数据库(MEDLINE、Philosopher's Index、EMBASE、CINAHL)中搜索了 393 条记录,有 72 项研究符合条件并被纳入:53 项实证研究、17 项结构审查和 2 项审查方案。12/72(17%)包含“伦理挑战”的明确定义,其中两个定义是共享的,因此有 11 个独特的定义。在这 11 个定义中,确定了四种方法:通过概念定义;参考道德冲突、道德不确定性或艰难选择;由参与者定义;以及与情绪或道德困扰相关的挑战。每个定义都包含一种或多种方法,但没有一个定义包含所有四种方法。72 项研究中有 68 项(94%)在其手稿文本中使用了密切相关的术语来同义地指代“伦理挑战”,每个研究确定了 32 个不同的术语,每个研究提到了 1 到 8 个不同的术语。

结论

只有 12/72 项研究包含“伦理挑战”的明确定义,其范围和复杂性存在显著差异。这种差异可能会导致混淆和对数据分析和结果产生偏见,从而降低对研究结果的信心。需要进一步开展关于确立可接受定义内容的工作,以为未来的生物伦理学研究提供信息。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4c59/8480083/8244b144d6eb/12910_2021_700_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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