• 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

“没有一个国家靠官僚主义就能变得卓越”:对简化澳大利亚研究伦理和治理程序请愿书评论的内容分析。

"No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence": A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes.

机构信息

Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, 3555Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Faculty of Health Science and Medicine, 3555Bond University, Robina, Australia.

出版信息

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022 Feb-Apr;17(1-2):102-113. doi: 10.1177/15562646211048268. Epub 2021 Oct 12.

DOI:10.1177/15562646211048268
PMID:34636706
Abstract

We created a petition for a national inquiry into the Australian system of research ethics and governance, to inform the politicians about the problems with the existing system. We analyzed the reasons that signatories offered for why signing the petition was important to them. A total of 409 comments (by 805 signatories) focused on five major themes: (1) views on previous changes to the system of research ethics and governance; (2) drawbacks of the existing system; (3) suggested changes to the system; (4) anticipated impacts of changing the system; and (5) miscellaneous/other comments. Comments ranged from several words to over 400 words in length, and most often focused on the procedural aspects, and commented on theme 2: drawbacks of the existing system.

摘要

我们创建了一份请愿书,呼吁对澳大利亚的研究伦理和治理体系进行全国性调查,以便让政治家们了解现有体系存在的问题。我们分析了签署者提供的签署请愿书对他们重要的原因。共有 409 条评论(由 805 名签署者提供)集中在五个主要主题上:(1)对之前研究伦理和治理体系变化的看法;(2)现有体系的缺陷;(3)对体系的建议性改变;(4)改变体系的预期影响;以及(5)杂项/其他评论。评论的长度从几个字到 400 多个字不等,大多数评论都集中在程序方面,并对主题 2:现有体系的缺陷进行了评论。

相似文献

1
"No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence": A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes.“没有一个国家靠官僚主义就能变得卓越”:对简化澳大利亚研究伦理和治理程序请愿书评论的内容分析。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022 Feb-Apr;17(1-2):102-113. doi: 10.1177/15562646211048268. Epub 2021 Oct 12.
2
Ethical issues: the multi-centre low-risk ethics/governance review process and AMOSS.伦理问题:多中心低风险伦理/治理审查流程与AMOSS
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Apr;52(2):195-203. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2011.01390.x. Epub 2011 Dec 20.
3
Challenges in obtaining research ethics and governance approvals for an Australian national intersector, multisite audit study.为一项澳大利亚全国性跨部门、多地点审计研究获取研究伦理与管理批准面临的挑战。
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Sep;44(5):799-805. doi: 10.1071/AH20022.
4
Inconsistencies and time delays in site-specific research approvals hinder collaborative clinical research in Australia.澳大利亚特定研究地点审批中的不一致和时间延迟,阻碍了协作性临床研究。
Intern Med J. 2016 Sep;46(9):1023-9. doi: 10.1111/imj.13191.
5
Is there a problem with the status quo? Debating the need for standalone ethical guidelines for research with people who use alcohol and other drugs.现状是否存在问题?探讨针对使用酒精和其他毒品的人群进行研究制定独立伦理准则的必要性。
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2014 Nov;33(6):637-42. doi: 10.1111/dar.12140. Epub 2014 Mar 30.
6
Ethics and governance for a multi-site study in Australia: Navigating the snakes and ladders.澳大利亚一项多中心研究的伦理与治理:应对艰难险阻。
J Paediatr Child Health. 2022 Jan;58(1):16-23. doi: 10.1111/jpc.15747. Epub 2021 Sep 16.
7
Research governance and change in research ethics practices at a major Australian university.澳大利亚一所主要大学的研究治理与研究伦理实践的变化
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2011 Sep;29(4):16.1-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03351330.
8
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.
9
Clinical trials with cannabis medicines-guidance for ethics committees, governance officers and researchers to streamline ethics applications and ensuring patient safety: considerations from the Australian experience.大麻药物临床试验——伦理委员会、治理官员和研究人员简化伦理申请和确保患者安全的指南:来自澳大利亚经验的考虑。
Trials. 2020 Nov 17;21(1):932. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04862-6.
10
Research governance: new hope for ethics committees?研究治理:伦理委员会的新希望?
Monash Bioeth Rev. 2007 Jan-Apr;26(1-2):17-23. doi: 10.1007/BF03351463.

引用本文的文献

1
Trials and tribulations: a qualitative exploration of researcher perspectives on navigating the challenges of health system implementation research.试验与磨难:对研究人员在应对卫生系统实施研究挑战方面观点的定性探索
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 15;15(1):e087926. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087926.
2
Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health.改善研究伦理审查与管理可促进人类健康。
J R Soc Med. 2021 Dec;114(12):556-562. doi: 10.1177/01410768211051711. Epub 2021 Nov 11.