Suchergebnisse

National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies.

"Background: Healthcare providers should care for everyone without discrimination based on gender, race, religion, ethnic background, and social and economic status. Therefore, considering the importance of ethical challenges in war, this study was conducted with the aim of investigating the ethical challenges of healthcare providers in war. Method: This integrative review study was conducted in the field of ethical challenges for healthcare providers in war. Using the keywords of ethics, challenge, war, and healthcare providers that were selected based on the words of the medical subject heading (Mesh); a targeted search was conducted under the title and abstract in Google Scholar, ProQuest, SID, Web of Science, PubMed, Elsevier, and Scopus from 2000 to November 2022 and in Persian and English languages. Findings: twelve articles of 1160 were reviewed. Findings showed that healthcare providers face ethical challenges in war, including discrimination in care, unprofessional work, cultural and gender care, ethics versus security, and ethical decisions. Conclusion: Recognizing ethical challenges and providing solutions helps to provide better care and save people's lives in war. Developing programs for the preparation of health service providers, using existing experiences, emphasizing religious and humanitarian teachings, and holding periodical missions, can prepare health service providers to face these ethical challenges."

In this paper Iain raises important issues about how the process of applying for ethical permission should be viewed as more than a bureaucratic exercise. Hospital chaplains can take advantage of their personal experience and expertise to engage fully with the process and to help develop thinking around ethical issues. Whilst every author in this edition has probably had some kind of irritation around applying for and receiving NHS ethical approval for research, the reality is that doing research ethically and ethical research remains a challenge, one which healthcare chaplains are well placed to meet. The research ethics committee should be seen as a resource with which to engage and a help in refining the proposal.

Saskatchewan's Joint Chiropractic Professional Review Committee functions to ensure that clinically necessary services are provided to patients. The committee which has both government (payer) and professional representation is created by the Medical Care Insurance Act in Saskatchewan. Examples of committee concerns include frequent visits by individual patients, high number of patients treated per day, poor record keeping, high service per discrete patient value. The article concludes with some suggestions for how to determine if a practitioner's pattern of practice is unusual and how to respond if contacted by the committee. The strengths of this form of review process include: the committee has a majority of chiropractors, patterns of practice are compared to that of peers, evaluation of patterns of practice uses random sampling of files to be analysed, and guidelines for practice are set by peers using a consensus process.

Ausgangspunkt dieser Veröffentlichung bildeten Tagungsbeiträge und einige andere Texte vor allem nordamerikanischer Sozialwissenschaftler(innen), die in insgesamt 13 Kapiteln die Spannungen dokumentieren, die mit der Programmatik und Praxis angewandter Forschungsethik im Rahmen qualitativer Forschung einhergehen. Behandelt werden u.a. die Unterscheidung von Ethik und Moral, der Umgang mit Ethik-Kommissionen, Ethik im Forschungsprozess, Trends im Umgang mit Ethik in der Forschung, ethische Fragen bei der Antragstellung usw. Obwohl überwiegend nordamerikanische Beitragende (d.h. aus Kanada und den USA), können deren Erfahrungen auch für Forschende anderer Nationalitäten interessant sein; eine Herausforderung bleibt in diesem Zusammenhang allerdings, dass wesentliche (kontinental-) europäische Perspektiven nicht hinreichend berücksichtigt wurden. Gleichwohl werden ethische Fragen auf einem vergleichsweise anspruchsvollen Niveau behandelt.

Abstract Background Submission of study protocols to research ethics committees (RECs) constitutes one of the earliest stages at which planned trials are documented in detail. Previous studies have investigated the amendments requested from researchers by RECs, but the type of issues raised during REC review have not been compared by sponsor type. The objective of this study was to identify recurring shortcomings in protocols of drug trials based on REC comments and to assess whether these were more common among industry-sponsored or non-industry trials. Methods Retrospective analysis of 226 protocols of drug trials approved in 2010–2011 by three RECs affiliated to academic medical centres in The Netherlands. For each protocol, information on sponsorship, number of participating centres, participating countries, study phase, registration status of the study drug, and type and number of subjects was retrieved. REC comments were extracted from decision letters sent to investigators after review and were classified using a predefined checklist that was based on legislation and guidelines on clinical drug research and previous literature. Results Most protocols received comments regarding participant information and consent forms (n = 182, 80.5%), methodology and statistical analyses (n = 160, 70.8%), and supporting documentation, including trial agreements and certificates of insurance (n = 154, 68.1%). Of the submitted protocols, 122 (54.0%) were non-industry and 104 (46.0%) were industry-sponsored trials. Non-industry trials more often received comments on subject selection (n = 44, 36.1%) than industry-sponsored trials (n = 18, 17.3%; RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.47), and on methodology and statistical analyses (n = 95, 77.9% versus n = 65, 62.5%, respectively; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.37). Non-industry trials less often received comments on supporting documentation (n = 72, 59.0%) than industry-sponsored trials (n = 82, 78.8%; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.95). Conclusions RECs identified important ethical and methodological shortcomings in protocols of both industry-sponsored and non-industry drug trials. Investigators, especially of non-industry trials, should better prepare their research protocols in order to facilitate the ethical review process.

© 2016 The Authors For nutrition and its associated disciplines, ethical considerations related to research are often complicated by factors that range from the use of experimental research designs that are overly holistic to inextricable links between nutrition research and marketing. As a consequence, there is the need for constant vigilance to assess and deal with apparent conflicts of interest. Also, there are few scientific disciplines that are defined by cultural, religious, or political codifications as is nutrition. Accordingly, examples of historical, cultural, and political events are described that have influenced ethical approaches related to nutrition research. Furthermore, nutrition research questions are often multifaceted and require dealing with complex variables. In this regard, ethical principles and perspectives that have relevance to data acquisition, the publication and translation of nutrition research, and the marketing of nutritional products and concepts are highlighted.

This article explores the ethics review committee as a contemporary witness to the conduct of biomedical research. Ethics committee work is an internationally growing form of deliberation and decision making, a technology of anticipation that grants researchers access to experimental spaces, research funds and publication venues. Drawing on ethnographic work with a range of ethics committees across the Asia-Pacific region, I explore the metaphorical extension of logics of seeing into bureaucratic forms of ethics review. My analysis untethers the witnessing voice from an individual 'point of view', focusing on the attestive assemblage and its documentation. By exploring the committee as a form of collective attestation, I aim to show witnessing as a form of ethical work, for ethical ends.