Suppr超能文献

研究伦理与健康和社会关怀中的合作研究:英国研究伦理政策分析、文献范围综述和焦点小组研究。

Research ethics and collaborative research in health and social care: Analysis of UK research ethics policies, scoping review of the literature, and focus group study.

机构信息

Department of Health Policy and Department of Social Policy, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.

Faculty of Health Studies, Jan Oyebode, Centre for Applied Dementia Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 22;18(12):e0296223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296223. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

Current research ethics frameworks were developed on the footprint of biomedical, experimental research and present several pitfalls when applied to non-experimental social sciences. This work explores how the normative principles underpinning policy and regulatory frameworks of research ethics and the related operational processes work in practice in the context of collaborative health and social care research. The work was organised in three phases. First, UK research ethics policy documents were analysed thematically, with themes further organised under the categories of 'Principles' and 'Processes'. Next, we conducted a scoping review of articles about research ethics in the context of collaborative health and social care research, published in English between 2010 and 2022. We then held an exploratory focus group with ten academic researchers with relevant experience to gather their views on how the research ethics system works in practice in England (UK). The thematic framework developed in the first phase supported the analysis of the articles included in the scoping review and of focus group data. The analysis of policy documents identified twelve themes. All were associated to both a principle and a related operational process. The scoping review identified 31 articles. Across these, some themes were barely acknowledged (e.g., Compliance with legislation). Other themes were extensively covered (e.g., The working of Research Ethics Committees), often to discuss issues and limitations in how, in practice, the research ethics system and its processes deal with collaborative research and to suggest options for improvement. Focus group data were largely consistent with the findings of the scoping review. This work provides evidence of the poor alignment between how the research ethics system is normatively expected to work and how it works in practice and offers options that could make research ethics more fit for purpose when addressing collaborative research in health and social care.

摘要

当前的研究伦理框架是在生物医学、实验研究的基础上发展起来的,在应用于非实验性社会科学时存在一些缺陷。这项工作探讨了支撑研究伦理政策和监管框架的规范原则以及相关操作流程在合作式健康和社会关怀研究背景下实际运作的情况。这项工作分为三个阶段进行。首先,对英国研究伦理政策文件进行了主题分析,将主题进一步组织为“原则”和“流程”两类。接下来,我们对 2010 年至 2022 年间以英文发表的关于合作式健康和社会关怀研究中研究伦理的文章进行了范围界定综述。然后,我们与十位具有相关经验的学术研究人员进行了探索性焦点小组讨论,以了解他们对英国研究伦理体系在实践中运作情况的看法。第一阶段开发的主题框架支持了对范围界定综述和焦点小组数据的分析。政策文件分析确定了 12 个主题。所有主题都与一个原则和一个相关的操作过程相关联。范围界定综述共确定了 31 篇文章。在这些文章中,有些主题几乎没有被提及(例如,遵守法规)。其他主题则被广泛涵盖(例如,研究伦理委员会的工作),经常讨论研究伦理体系及其流程在实践中如何处理合作研究的问题和局限性,并提出改进的选择方案。焦点小组数据与范围界定综述的结果基本一致。这项工作提供了证据表明,研究伦理体系的规范预期运作方式与实际运作方式之间存在很大的不匹配,并提供了一些选择方案,可以使研究伦理在解决健康和社会关怀领域的合作研究时更加切合实际。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a453/10745183/9956b9dc9f40/pone.0296223.g001.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