Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:R. Constance Wiener Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. PurposeEditors often require ethical statements in research publications. This is particularly important with genetic data where discrimination may occur upon data disclosures. The purpose of this research is to determine if there was a positive trend of publishing ethical statements in dental genetic research. The study is limited to AXIN2 mutations which may be associated with oligodontia and cancer.MethodsA MEDLINE search of 2011–2021 articles concerning AXIN2, oligodontia, and ethical statements was conducted. Reviews, nonhuman subject research, abstracts, and articles not written nor translated into English were excluded.ResultsForty-four studies were found; 10 excluded. There were 25 (75.8%) with ethical statements, and 25 (75.8%) with participant consent statements. There was no significant difference by year in ethical statements over the ten years (p = 0.094).ConclusionThere is a need to encourage more ethical statements in publications especially for genetically sensitive topics to reassure readers of ethical practices. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-07-25T11:48:19Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221116801
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Hiran Thabrew, Noor Aljawahiri, Harshali Kumar, Nicholas Bowden, Barry Milne, Megan Prictor, Vanessa Jordan, Josefein Breedvelt, Toni Shepherd, Sarah Hetrick Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a national database containing a wide range of data about people and households. There is limited information about public views regarding its use for research.A qualitative study was undertaken to examine the views of forty individuals attending a large hospital in Auckland, including those of Māori ethnicity and young people. Semi-structured interview data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis.Seven key themes emerged: 1) Limited knowledge about medical data held in national databases; 2) Conditional support for the use of the IDI, including for research; 3) Concerns regarding the misuse of IDI data; 4) The importance of privacy; 5) Different views regarding consent for use of data for research; 6) Desire for access to personal data and the results of research; and 7) Concerns regarding third party and commercial use. Young people and those of Māori ethnicity were more wary of data misuse than others.Although there is reasonable support for the secondary use of public administrative data in the IDI for research, there is more work to be done to ensure ethical and culturally appropriate use of this data via improved consent privacy management processes and researcher training. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-07-18T03:26:44Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221111294
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Judy Illes, Ashley Lawson, Patrick J. McDonald Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. We discuss research ethics challenges experienced while running a discrete choice experiment administered to caregivers of children with treatment resistant pediatric epilepsy. We highlight ethical considerations around the study design of the discrete choice experimental paradigm that pertain to vulnerability of and caregiving burden on the population, imbalance of benefit-to-load of participation, and limitations of cultural meaningfulness and generalizability. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-07-18T02:49:26Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221112339
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:M. Kemal Temel Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines outline the basic principles for ethical conduct and publication of human-subject research, most notably informed consent (IC) and research ethics committee (REC) approval. This retrospective observational study was a first study to investigate the quality of reporting of these protections in a selected sample of medical papers published in Turkey. A total of 573 research articles published in the official journals of six leading Turkish medical schools between January 2018 and December 2020 were searched for information on obtaining (i) REC approval, (ii) written IC from research subjects or their legal guardians/representatives, and (iii) an REC-granted IC waiver when it was found, as stated in the DoH, “impossible or impracticable to obtain consent” from research subjects. Similarly, a total of 166 case reports were searched for a statement about publication-specific IC, as was recommended by COPE. Despite a statistically significant improvement over the years, the overall rates were found to be unsatisfactory. The protections were particularly misused or underused in retrospective research, where the rates of reporting written IC (15.41% vs. 48.61%) and REC approval with date and reference number information (45.38% vs. 61.11%) were significantly lower than in prospective research (p Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-06-22T04:40:55Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221108600
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Larimar Rodriguez, Cristina Murray-Krezan, Lidia Regino, Maria Tellez, Camille Vasquez, Virginia Sandoval, Daniel Perez Rodriguez, Blanca Pedigo, Janet Page-Reeves Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Study designs involving randomization can be difficult to communicate to participants, especially those with low literacy. The literature on strategies to explain research concepts is limited, especially for non-English speakers. We measured the effectiveness of a culturally and contextually situated multimedia approach to recruit a cohort of 60 female Mexican immigrants (FMI) to a randomized control trial (RCT) to reduce social isolation and depression. This strategy was designed to explain the concept of randomization, explain what participating in the research study entailed, and ensure informed consent. Potential participants viewed a presentation explaining the study and a video including animation with voice-over explaining the concept of randomization. We administered a pre/post survey. Respondents (N = 59) reported an increase in their understanding of randomization, intention to enroll, and attitude towards participating in research. We conclude that a culturally and contextually situated multimedia approach is an effective model when recruiting underrepresented populations with low literacy for RCTs. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-05-19T04:33:14Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221102682
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Amal Matar, Henry J. Silverman Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Lately, there has been increased research performed in Egypt. In response, the Egyptian Parliament published its first clinical research law in December 2020. The official version of the law was translated to English from Arabic and back by an accredited translation service. We performed an ethical analysis of the law based on the seven ethical requirements for clinical research proposed by Emanuel et al. and compared it with other regulations in the Arab region. The law contains provisions that fulfill all requirements for ethical research to varying degree. Provisions necessitating the sharing of participants’ data and biospecimens by the Central Intelligence Agency requires further specifications to ensure privacy protection. Also, the law poses problematic liabilities that could hamper medical research. Egypt's law compares favorably with other laws in the region. Potential items that require further specification can be addressed in the executive regulations currently being drafted for the law. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-05-17T05:10:04Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221096188
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Francis Anyaka Amayoa, Frederick Nelson Nakwagala, John Barugahare, Ian Guyton Munabi, Erisa Sabakaki Mwaka Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Several studies have reported inadequate comprehension of informed consent for genomic research. This study aimed to assess research participants’ understanding of critical elements of informed consent for genomic research. A cross-sectional survey involving 123 parents/caregivers of children participating in a paediatric genomic TB/HIV study was conducted. Only 47.2% of the participants had adequate understanding of consent information. The mean objective (actual) and subjective (perceived) understanding scores were 78.7% and 91.7% respectively. Participants adequately understood most elements of consent however, some elements were poorly understood including foreseeable risks, protection of confidentiality and compensation for research related injury. Overall there was inadequate comprehension of critical elements of informed consent and there was dissonance between actual and perceived comprehension of informed consent. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-05-12T12:55:08Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221100430
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Bridget Pratt, Adrian Harper Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-05-03T11:43:41Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221097225
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Michelle R. Brear Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Bridget Pratt and Adrian Harper ( ) conducted a comparison of articles identified through six electronic literature searches. Their aim was to “identify ethics literature… that discussed combatting neo-colonial models of research”. They used manifest content analysis to compare the conceptual content of articles from the fields of global health (GH) and Australian Aboriginal health (AH). This innovative application of a literature review approach from literary and media studies, to health sciences in which literature reviews have traditionally focused on synthesizing evidence about intervention effectiveness, should be commended. It has potential to advance theoretical understandings of ethics in health research. However, I argue here that Pratt and Harper’s (2021) search strategy has several weaknesses, which suggests that their results must be interpreted with caution. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-04-29T05:12:38Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221097226
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Mutshidzi A Mulondo, Joyce M Tsoka-Gwegweni, Puleng LenkaBula, Perpetual Chikobvu Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Capacity development of research ethics committees is generally limited to members, and seldom includes administrators. This study sought to map the capacity development efforts of research ethics administrators. A scoping review was conducted. The literature search yielded 92 potentially relevant records, and further screening yielded 22 studies. The 22 studies were extracted and synthesized; two studies spoke directly on administrators’ capacity development, while the remaining 20 focused on the capacity development of committees or of committee members. The two studies which spoke directly on administrators reported about two capacity development efforts targeting administrators in Africa, namely the African Conference for Administrators of Research Ethics Committees, and the West African Bioethics Training Program. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-04-27T07:57:58Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221097044
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Min-Fu Tsan, Hannah Van Hook Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. The Common Rule, revised extensively to enhance human subjects protections and to reduce burdens to investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs), was implemented on January 19, 2019. We analyzed IRB performance metric data from 2016 through 2021 to evaluate the potential impact of the revised Common Rule on the quality and performance of IRBs. From 2016 to 2021, exempt protocols increased by 159% and protocols requiring IRB continuing reviews decreased by 28%. As only 48% of all protocols in 2021 were subjected to the revised Common Rule requirements, numbers of exempt protocols and protocols requiring IRB continuing reviews will continue to increase and decrease, respectively, in the next few years. Among a total of 16 IRB performance metrics studied, 4 improved, 4 deteriorated, and 8 remained unchanged from 2016 through 2021. This study represents the first effort to evaluate the impact of revised Common rule on IRB quality and performance. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-04-26T11:27:24Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221094407
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Mzikazi Nduna, Simangele Mayisela, Sadna Balton, Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Jabulani G. Kheswa, Itumeleng P Khumalo, Tawanda Makhusha, Maheshvari Naidu, Yandisa Sikweyiya, Sello L. Sithole, Cily Tabane Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This paper utilizes critical theory to interrogate and problematize the practice of anonymising research sites as an ethical imperative. The contributing authors conduct research in and with various communities in southern Africa, position themselves and work from and within diverse areas and specialities of the social sciences. This article is developed from their rich and wide spectrum of field experience with a great diversity of communities, but mainly the poorer, under-resourced, socially and economically marginalized. The authors strongly identify with these communities whose anonymity in published research is seen as marginalizing. Such research sites are places and communities where these researchers grew up and live in, and thus not just as peripheral or ‘out there’ entities. Therefore, the naming of research sites in this context is deemed as being ethical, out of respect for participants, for a contextually embedded understanding, and for well-targeted interventions and policy influence. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-03-08T11:15:04Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221084838
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:I. Stevens, F. Gilbert First page: 228 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has progressed to become a promising treatment modality for neurologic and psychiatric disorders like epilepsy and major depressive disorder due to its growing personalization. Despite evidence pointing to the benefits of DBS if tested on these personalized qualitative metrics, rather than randomized-control trial quantitative standards, the evaluation of these novel devices appears to be based on the latter. This study surveyed the presence of this trend in the national regulatory guidelines of the prominent DBS researching countries. It was found that two governing bodies, in the European Union and Australia, acknowledged the option for qualitative measures. These findings support further development of national regulatory guidelines, so the neuroscientific community developing these neurotechnologies can better understand the impact their treatments have on patients. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-04-15T05:54:00Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221094922
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Thibaud Haaser, Vincent Bouteloup, Driss Berdaï, Marie-Claude Saux First page: 242 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants’ information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers—scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-04-13T07:22:51Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221093218
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Stephanie Taplin, Jenny Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham, Morag McArthur First page: 254 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods on research ethics committee (HREC) members’ approval of social research studies involving children. A total of 183 Australian HREC members completed an online survey. The higher the perceived sensitivity of the study topic, the less likely the study would be approved by an HREC member. HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. Payment was the most common reason for not approving the low risk studies, while risks were the most common reasons for not approving the more sensitive studies. Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive study topics. Both HRECs and researchers may benefit from additional guidance on managing risks and payments for children and young people in research. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-03-18T12:00:04Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221087530
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Mitch Brown, Robert E. McGrath, Donald F. Sacco First page: 267 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Systemic efforts have been employed to improve the reproducibility of published findings in psychology. To date, little research has been conducted evaluating how well these efforts work. In an effort to bridge this gap, the current study looked at journal submission requirements intended to encourage authors to engage in best practices for facilitating reproducible science and offers preliminary evidence for their potential efficacy. We calculated reproducibility indices (p-curves) for three randomly selected empirical studies published in each of 23 psychology journals in 2019 and correlated quantitative results from those analyzes with the number of submission requirements for each journal that intended to ensure compliance with best reporting practices. Results indicated a greater number of submission requirements at a given outlet was associated with indices indicating greater likelihood of reproducibility of findings. We frame findings as impetus for future, more extensive, research to identify causal links between submission requirements and reproducibility. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-02-28T04:10:13Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221083384
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Rasha M. Arabyat, Bashar R. Qawasmeh, Sayer I. Al-Azzam, Mohammad B. Nusair, Karem H. Alzoubi First page: 275 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Objective:To evaluate predictors of the use of anti-plagiarism detection tools (APTs) in higher education institutions.Methods:An online survey based on the theory of planned behavior was sent to members of science faculties in Jordan. Multivariate Logistic regression was conducted to determine predictors of previous use of APTs, and multivariate linear regression to predict future intentions.Results:A total of 173 faculty members completed the survey, with 78.13% indicating previous APTs use. Turnitin® (43%) and Ithenticate® (32.8%) were the most commonly used APTs. These tools were mainly used to evaluate papers before sending them to journals (65.5%) and to detect plagiarism in theses/dissertations (50.4%). Predictors of previous use were academic rank (p = 0.02) and perceived understanding of APT use (p = 0.043). Intentions for future use were predicted by attitudes (p Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-02-21T05:09:00Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221078655
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Abigail Wilkinson, Catherine Slack, Siyabonga Thabethe, Jessica Salzwedel First page: 292 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Ethics guidance recommends that researchers engage stakeholders and that RECs review research for such engagement. The ethics review process may present a unique opportunity to support stakeholder engagement practices for HIV prevention studies. We conducted 28 interviews with experts from 12 countries to explore this issue, and analyzed the data using Thematic Analysis. We found that the value of engagement and review processes was strongly endorsed. However, we identified 3 major thematic complexities, namely: “Tokenism” where processes risk being “tick-box”; “Toxicity”, where practices may inadvertently have negative consequences; and “Tailoring”, where processes need careful variation in intensity. We make recommendations for how these “Ts” can be addressed during the review process to help contribute to thoughtful review of meaningful stakeholder engagement in research. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-02-15T01:53:22Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221078415
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Erika Blacksher, Susan Brown Trinidad, R. Brian Woodbury, Scarlett E. Hopkins, Erica L. Woodahl, Bert B. Boyer, Wylie Burke, Vanessa Hiratsuka First page: 304 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Deliberative democratic engagement is used around the globe to gather informed public input on contentious collective questions. Yet, rarely has it been used to convene individuals exclusively from Indigenous communities. The relative novelty of using this approach to engage tribal communities and concerns about diversity and inequities raise important methodological questions. We describe the design and quality outcomes for a 2.5-day deliberation that elicited views of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) leaders about the potential value and ethical conduct of precision medicine research (PMR), an emerging approach to research that investigates the health effects of individual genetic variation in tandem with variation in health-relevant practices, social determinants, and environmental exposures. The event met key goals, such as relationship and rapport formation, cross-site learning, equality of opportunity to participate, and respect among participants in the context of disagreement. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-02-28T04:09:34Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221081267
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Katherine Christian, Carolyn Johnstone, Jo-ann Larkins, Wendy Wright First page: 317 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. A “gatekeeper” controls access to an organization; “gatekeeper approval” is often needed before external research can take place within an organization. We explore the need for gatekeeper approval for research with university staff employing, as a case study, a project which collected data in Australia. This case study addresses known issues, seemingly rarely addressed in the literature. The Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)'s requirement for approval from individual universities to approach their staff brought significant consequences, exacerbated by the lack of university procedures for such approvals. Simultaneously, since invitations could legitimately be distributed via other avenues, such approval was superfluous. We recommend the HREC's blanket requirement for institutional approval instead be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the risk of the research, and perhaps waived for low-risk research where participants are able to provide informed consent, and that universities establish processes to deal with requests from external researchers. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-01-05T03:07:39Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646211068316
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Roma Dhamanaskar, William B. Feldman, Jon F. Merz First page: 329 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Impracticability is an ethical standard for waiver of informed consent in research. We examine how well the criterion of impracticability appears to have been fulfilled in a set of 36 completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that secured consent from some subjects or LARs and employed waivers to enroll others. These trials were identified among 155 RCTs using waivers of consent in a convenience sample drawn from 7 systematic reviews. Recruitment data were available for 19 of the 36 trials, revealing an average of 41.6% of subjects (range 0.2–98.7%, 95% CI: 24.8–58.4%) were enrolled without consent. Six trials enrolled less than 10% of subjects without consent and an overlapping set of 9 trials sought consent from all subjects or LARs at some sites while waiving consent at other sites. We question whether these trials were practicable without waivers and identify issues for consideration by investigators and ethics review boards. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-04-20T06:27:25Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221092663
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Astrid Berner-Rodoreda, Shannon McMahon, Nir Eyal, Puspita Hossain, Atonu Rabbani, Mrittika Barua, Malabika Sarker, Emmy Metta, Elia Mmbaga, Melkizedeck Leshabari, Daniel Wikler, Till Bärnighausen First page: 346 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. Individual informed consent is a central requirement for clinical research on human subjects, yet whether and how consent requirements should apply to health policy experiments (HPEs) remains unclear. HPEs test and evaluate public health policies prior to implementation. We interviewed 58 health experts in Tanzania, Bangladesh and Germany on informed consent requirements for HPEs. Health experts across all countries favored a strong evidence base, prior information to the affected populations, and individual consent for ‘risky’ HPEs. Differences pertained to individual risk perception, how and when consent by group representatives should be obtained and whether HPEs could be treated as health policies. The study adds to representative consent options for HPEs, yet shows that more research is needed in this field – particularly in the present Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the need for HPEs nationally and globally. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-02-10T09:40:14Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221076764
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Zhanqing Hu, Chenxi Ouyang, Jessica Hahne, Kaveh Khoshnood, Jinqiang Zhang, Xiyu Liu, Ying Wu, Xiaomin Wang First page: 362 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This study aims to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of participants and potential participants in clinical trials toward electronic informed consent. We conducted a survey-based cross-sectional study in Hunan Province, China in March 2021. A total of 547 respondents were included in this study. All questions in an 8-item survey section assessing participants’ knowledge of electronic informed consent received correct answers from at least 70% of participants. In terms of attitude scores, most participants (86.3%) believed that electronic informed consent is more convenient than the paper-based version, and more than half (51.2%) believed that electronic informed consent could completely replace the paper-based version. Responses indicated that common concerns about electronic informed consent were its security and confidentiality, legal benefits, and implications for rights protection. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-01-28T01:17:33Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221075884
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Frank G Preston, Yanda Meng, Yalin Zheng, James Hsuan, Kevin J Hamill, Austin G McCormick First page: 373 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print. This study determined the effectiveness of three deidentification methods: use of a) a black box to obscure facial landmarks, b) a letterbox view to display restricted facial landmarks and c) a half letterbox view. Facial images of well-known celebrities were used to create a series of decreasingly deidentified images and displayed to participants in a structured interview session. 55.5% were recognised when all facial features were covered using a black box, leaving only the hair and neck exposed. The letterbox view proved more effective, reaching over 50% recognition only once the periorbital region, eyebrows, and forehead were visible. The half letterbox was the most effective, requiring the nose to be revealed before recognition reached over 50%, and should be the option of choice where appropriate. These findings provide valuable information for informed consent discussions, and we recommend consent to publish forms should stipulate the deidentification method that will be used. Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-01-24T01:01:16Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646221075459
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
First page: 401 Abstract: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics PubDate: 2022-01-24T01:00:47Z DOI: 10.1177/15562646211072503
Subscription journal
