• 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

相似文献

1
Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research.作为促进公平公正研究框架的合理性问责制。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2024 Dec;54 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S66-S72. doi: 10.1002/hast.4931.
2
Conceptualizations of fairness and legitimacy in the context of Ethiopian health priority setting: Reflections on the applicability of accountability for reasonableness.埃塞俄比亚卫生重点确定背景下的公平与合法性概念:对合理性问责制适用性的思考
Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Dec;18(4):357-364. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12153. Epub 2017 May 22.
3
What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?加拿大安大略省的医院决策者对于其所在机构中确定优先次序的公平性有何看法?
BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 Jan 21;5(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-8.
4
Beyond the Black Box Approach to Ethics! Comment on "Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy".超越黑箱方法的伦理学思考!评“扩展后的 HTA:增强公平性和合法性”。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016 Apr 20;5(6):393-4. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2016.43.
5
Inequitable access to healthcare in Africa: reconceptualising the "accountability for reasonableness framework" to reflect indigenous principles.非洲医疗保健服务获取的不公平现象:重新构想“合理性问责框架”,以反映本土原则。
Int J Equity Health. 2021 Jun 13;20(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01482-7.
6
Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation.在坦桑尼亚地区一级实施合理性问责框架:一个现实主义评估。
Implement Sci. 2011 Feb 10;6:11. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-11.
7
Accountability for reasonableness: opening the black box of process.合理性问责制:打开过程的黑匣子。
Health Care Anal. 2005 Dec;13(4):261-73. doi: 10.1007/s10728-005-8124-2.
8
Justice and procedure: how does "accountability for reasonableness" result in fair limit-setting decisions?正义与程序:“合理性问责制”如何带来公平的限制设定决策?
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jan;35(1):12-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024430.
9
Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review.卫生筹资决策程序公正性标准:范围综述。
Health Policy Plan. 2023 Nov 14;38(Supplement_1):i13-i35. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czad066.
10
Decentralized health care priority-setting in Tanzania: evaluating against the accountability for reasonableness framework.坦桑尼亚分散式医疗保健重点制定:基于合理性问责框架的评估。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Aug;71(4):751-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.035. Epub 2010 May 25.

本文引用的文献

1
A roadmap to increase diversity in genomic studies.增加基因组研究多样性的路线图。
Nat Med. 2022 Feb;28(2):243-250. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01672-4. Epub 2022 Feb 10.
2
Contextual bias, the democratization of healthcare, and medical artificial intelligence in low- and middle-income countries.语境偏见、医疗保健民主化与中低收入国家的医疗人工智能。
Bioethics. 2022 Feb;36(2):201-209. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12927. Epub 2021 Aug 30.
3
People use both heterogeneity and minority representation to evaluate diversity.人们使用异质性和少数民族代表性来评估多样性。
Sci Adv. 2021 Mar 12;7(11). doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abf2507. Print 2021 Mar.
4
Don't ignore genetic data from minority populations.不要忽视少数族裔群体的基因数据。
Nature. 2020 Sep;585(7824):184-186. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02547-3.
5
Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy.扩大卫生技术评估:增强公平性和合法性。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Nov 6;5(1):1-3. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.187.
6
Accountability for reasonableness: the relevance, or not, of exceptionality in resource allocation.合理性问责制:资源分配中特殊性的相关性与否。
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 May;18(2):217-27. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9592-7.
7
The accountability for reasonableness approach to guide priority setting in health systems within limited resources--findings from action research at district level in Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia.在有限资源条件下指导卫生系统确定优先事项的合理问责制方法——肯尼亚、坦桑尼亚和赞比亚地区层面行动研究的结果
Health Res Policy Syst. 2014 Aug 20;12:49. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-12-49.
8
The ethics and reality of rationing in medicine.医学资源分配的伦理与现实
Chest. 2011 Dec;140(6):1625-1632. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-0622.
9
More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation.超越塔斯基吉:理解对参与研究的不信任
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010 Aug;21(3):879-97. doi: 10.1353/hpu.0.0323.
10
Accountability for reasonableness: an update.合理性问责制:最新情况
BMJ. 2008 Oct 9;337:a1850. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1850.

作为促进公平公正研究框架的合理性问责制。

Accountability for Reasonableness as a Framework for the Promotion of Fair and Equitable Research.

作者信息

Dupras Charles, Dubé Marie-Pierre, Gravel Simon, Haidar Hazar

出版信息

Hastings Cent Rep. 2024 Dec;54 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S66-S72. doi: 10.1002/hast.4931.

DOI:10.1002/hast.4931
PMID:39707939
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11662771/
Abstract

Despite increased efforts to ensure diversity in genomic research, the exclusion of minority groups from data analyses and publications remains a critical issue. This paper addresses the ethical implications of these exclusions and proposes accountability for reasonableness (A4R) as a framework to promote fairness and equity in research. Originally conceived by Norman Daniels and James Sabin to guide resource allocation in the context of health policy, A4R emphasizes publicity, relevance of reasons, enforcement, and revision as essential for legitimacy and trust in the decision-making process. The authors argue that A4R is also relevant to resource allocation in research and that, if adequately informed and incentivized by funding agencies, institutional review boards, and scientific journals, researchers are well-positioned to assess data-selection justifications. The A4R framework provides a promising foundation for fostering accountability in genomics and other fields, including artificial intelligence, where lack of diversity and pervasive biases threaten equitable benefit sharing.

摘要

尽管为确保基因组研究的多样性付出了更多努力,但在数据分析和出版物中排除少数群体仍然是一个关键问题。本文探讨了这些排除行为的伦理影响,并提出合理性问责制(A4R)作为促进研究公平性和公正性的框架。合理性问责制最初由诺曼·丹尼尔斯和詹姆斯·萨宾构想,用于指导卫生政策背景下的资源分配,它强调公开性、理由的相关性、执行和修订对于决策过程的合法性和信任至关重要。作者认为,合理性问责制也与研究中的资源分配相关,并且,如果得到资助机构、机构审查委员会和科学期刊的充分告知和激励,研究人员有能力评估数据选择的理由。合理性问责制框架为促进基因组学和其他领域(包括人工智能)的问责制提供了一个有前景的基础,在这些领域,缺乏多样性和普遍存在的偏见威胁着公平的利益分享。