Bryant Jamie, Booth Kade, Collis Felicity, Chamberlain Catherine, Hughes Jaquelyne, Hobden Breanne, Griffiths Kalinda E, Wenitong Mark, O'Mara Peter, Brown Alex, Eades Sandra J, Kong Kelvin M, Lovett Raymond W, Kennedy Michelle
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW.
Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW.
Med J Aust. 2025 Feb 3;222 Suppl 2:S25-S33. doi: 10.5694/mja2.52565.
To examine self-reported practices for obtaining ethics approval and reflections on ethics application processes among researchers who have conducted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.
Cross-sectional online survey.
Australian-based researchers who conducted research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.
Results from a 74-item online survey that participants completed, which included questions on demographics, ethics processes, perceptions of engagement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research, and barriers to and enablers of conducting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research.
Of 553 eligible researchers who commenced the survey, 439 (79.4%) answered all of the questions and were included in the analysis. A total of 327 participants (74.5%) had obtained ethics approval from an Aboriginal human research ethics committee (AHREC), 254 (57.9%) had obtained multistate ethics approvals and 270 (61.5%) had not participated in ethics training specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants were significantly more likely to report being very or extremely confident in managing the ethics application process if they had ≥ 6 years of research experience, had participated in training, had obtained ethics approval from an AHREC, or dedicated > 50% of their time to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants acknowledged the importance of ethics approval processes in improving research practices, however they identified time and costs as barriers. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants identified that ethics processes do not always uphold Indigenous approaches or methodologies.
Processes for obtaining ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research do not meet contemporary research needs and would be strengthened by streamlining ethics application processes, reducing time and cost barriers, and enhancing cultural appropriateness. We join calls for the establishment of state-based AHRECs in every jurisdiction, and a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human research ethics committee to review cross-jurisdictional research.
调查在开展原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民健康与医学研究的研究人员中,自我报告的获得伦理批准的做法以及对伦理申请流程的反思。
横断面在线调查。
以澳大利亚为基地、开展涉及原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民或其数据研究的研究人员。
参与者完成的一项包含74个条目的在线调查结果,其中包括有关人口统计学、伦理流程、对参与原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民研究的认知,以及开展原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民研究的障碍与促进因素的问题。
在553名开始调查的符合条件的研究人员中,439名(79.4%)回答了所有问题并纳入分析。共有327名参与者(74.5%)获得了原住民人类研究伦理委员会(AHREC)的伦理批准,254名(57.9%)获得了多州伦理批准,270名(61.5%)未参加专门针对原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民研究的伦理培训。如果研究人员有≥6年的研究经验、参加过培训、获得了AHREC的伦理批准,或将超过50%的时间用于原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民研究,他们更有可能报告对管理伦理申请流程非常或极其有信心。参与者认可伦理批准流程在改进研究实践中的重要性,但他们认为时间和成本是障碍。原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民参与者指出,伦理流程并不总是支持本土方法或方法论。
原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民健康与医学研究的伦理批准流程无法满足当代研究需求,通过简化伦理申请流程、减少时间和成本障碍以及提高文化适宜性可加以强化。我们赞同呼吁在每个司法管辖区设立基于州的AHREC,以及设立一个全国性的原住民及托雷斯海峡岛民人类研究伦理委员会来审查跨司法管辖区的研究。