• 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
The views of members of Local Research Ethics Committees, researchers and members of the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs.地方研究伦理委员会成员、研究人员和公众对地方研究伦理委员会的角色和职能的看法。
J Med Ethics. 1997 Jun;23(3):186-90. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.3.186.
2
Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals.四个地方研究伦理委员会对提交提案的回复。
J Med Ethics. 1999 Jun;25(3):274-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.3.274.
3
Ethical review of multi-centre research: a survey of local research ethics committees in the south Thames region.多中心研究的伦理审查:对泰晤士河南部地区当地研究伦理委员会的一项调查。
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998 May-Jun;32(3):238-41.
4
Views of National Health Service (NHS) Ethics Committee members on how education research should be reviewed.英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)伦理委员会成员对教育研究应如何进行审查的看法。
Med Teach. 2007 Mar;29(2-3):225-30. doi: 10.1080/01421590701300179.
5
Do researchers feel an LREC hinders research?研究人员是否认为伦理审查委员会妨碍了研究?
Bull Med Ethics. 2001 Feb(165):17-9.
6
Descriptive ethics: a qualitative study of local research ethics committees in Mexico.描述性伦理学:对墨西哥当地研究伦理委员会的定性研究。
Dev World Bioeth. 2006 May;6(2):95-105. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00144.x.
7
The annual reports of Local Research Ethics Committees.地方研究伦理委员会的年度报告。
J Med Ethics. 1995 Aug;21(4):214-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.4.214.
8
Ethical review of multi-centre research: a survey of multi-centre researchers in the South Thames region.多中心研究的伦理审查:对南泰晤士地区多中心研究人员的一项调查
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1998 May-Jun;32(3):242-5.
9
Do Australian researchers accept committee review and conduct ethical research?澳大利亚的研究人员会接受委员会审查并开展符合伦理的研究吗?
Soc Sci Med. 1992 Aug;35(3):317-22. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90028-o.
10
Local Research Ethics Committees can audit ethical standards in research.当地研究伦理委员会可以对研究中的伦理标准进行审核。
J Med Ethics. 1997 Dec;23(6):379-81. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.6.379.

引用本文的文献

1
Research ethics committees: A forum where scientists, editors, and policymakers can cooperate during pandemics.研究伦理委员会:科学家、编辑和政策制定者在大流行期间可以合作的论坛。
Med Sci Law. 2022 Jul;62(3):230-232. doi: 10.1177/00258024221075469. Epub 2022 Jan 25.
2
A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.关于研究伦理审查质量与有效性的实证研究的范围综述
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 30;10(7):e0133639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133639. eCollection 2015.
3
Supporting ethical practice in primary care research: strategies for action.支持初级保健研究中的道德实践:行动策略
Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Dec;52(485):1007-11.
4
Ethics in exercise science research.运动科学研究中的伦理问题。
Sports Med. 2002;32(3):169-83. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200232030-00002.
5
Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders.涉及地域分散受试者的研究的伦理批准:英国医学研究伦理委员会/地方研究伦理委员会系统的不适用性及与罕见遗传病的相关性
J Med Ethics. 2001 Oct;27(5):347-51. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.5.347.
6
Responses by four Local Research Ethics Committees to submitted proposals.四个地方研究伦理委员会对提交提案的回复。
J Med Ethics. 1999 Jun;25(3):274-7. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.3.274.

本文引用的文献

1
Therapeutic misconceptions: when the voices of caring and research are misconstrued as the voice of curing.治疗误区:当关爱与研究之声被误解为治愈之声时。
Ethics Behav. 1992;2(3):165-84. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0203_3.
2
Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol.地方研究伦理委员会。对一项全国性调查方案的反应大相径庭。
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994 Mar-Apr;28(2):150-4.
3
The rights of patients in research.患者在研究中的权利。
BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1277-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1277.
4
Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees.向研究伦理委员会提交申请的跨地区比较。
BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):660-1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.660.
5
Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience.一项全国性邮政调查的伦理批准:近期经验
BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):659-60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.659.
6
Local research ethics committees.当地研究伦理委员会。
BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):639-40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.639.
7
Why do research ethics committees disagree with each other?为什么研究伦理委员会之间会存在分歧?
J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(4):315-8.
8
Confidentiality expectations of patients, physicians, and medical students.患者、医生和医学生对保密的期望。
JAMA. 1982 May 21;247(19):2695-7.
9
Nurses' perceptions of patients' needs for information and their concerns in an English coronary care unit.英国冠心病监护病房护士对患者信息需求及担忧的认知
Intensive Care Nurs. 1985;1(2):84-91. doi: 10.1016/0266-612x(85)90004-5.
10
The myth of informed consent: in daily practice and in clinical trials.知情同意的神话:在日常实践和临床试验中。
J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):6-11. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.6.

地方研究伦理委员会成员、研究人员和公众对地方研究伦理委员会的角色和职能的看法。

The views of members of Local Research Ethics Committees, researchers and members of the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs.

作者信息

Kent G

机构信息

Northern General Hospital, Sheffield.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 1997 Jun;23(3):186-90. doi: 10.1136/jme.23.3.186.

DOI:10.1136/jme.23.3.186
PMID:9220334
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1377349/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

It can be argued that the ethical conduct of research involves achieving a balance between the rights and needs of three parties-potential research participants, society, and researchers. Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) have a number of roles and functions in the research enterprise, but there have been some indications that LREC members, researchers and the public can have different views about these responsibilities. Any such differences are potential sources of disagreement and misunderstanding.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the views of LREC members, researchers and the public towards the roles and functions of LRECs.

DESIGN

A questionnaire that contained items concerned with a variety of such roles was distributed to general practice patients (as proxies for potential research participants), researchers and LREC members.

FINDINGS

While general practice patients believed that the main function of LRECs is to ensure that research participants come to no harm, LREC members were more concerned with the protection of participants' rights. There was also some disagreement between members and researchers with regard to the consideration of proposals on the grounds of scientific merit.

CONCLUSIONS

Local Research Ethics Committee members need to be aware of potential differences in views, that they ought to make their priorities clear, and that membership of LRECs ought to reflect the views of both researchers and potential research participants.

摘要

背景

可以说,研究的道德行为涉及在潜在研究参与者、社会和研究人员这三方的权利和需求之间取得平衡。地方研究伦理委员会(LRECs)在研究事业中具有多项作用和职能,但有迹象表明,伦理委员会成员、研究人员和公众对这些职责可能有不同看法。任何此类差异都是分歧和误解的潜在根源。

目的

比较伦理委员会成员、研究人员和公众对伦理委员会作用和职能的看法。

设计

向全科医疗患者(作为潜在研究参与者的代表)、研究人员和伦理委员会成员发放了一份包含各种此类作用相关条目的问卷。

结果

虽然全科医疗患者认为伦理委员会的主要职能是确保研究参与者不受伤害,但伦理委员会成员更关注保护参与者的权利。在基于科学价值考虑提案方面,成员和研究人员之间也存在一些分歧。

结论

地方研究伦理委员会成员需要意识到观点上的潜在差异,应明确其优先事项,并且伦理委员会的成员构成应反映研究人员和潜在研究参与者双方的观点。