Dataset Information

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.

Methods

This explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.

Results

The analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.

Conclusions

Even though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

SUBMITTER: Mertz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6663028 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.

Mertz Marcel M Fischer Tobias T Salloch Sabine S

PloS one 20190729 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Value and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonet ...[more]

PMID: 31356629

Similar Datasets

Project description:Protecting human subjects from being exploited is one of the main ethical challenges for clinical research. However, there is also a responsibility to protect and respect the communities who are hosting the research. Recently, attention has focused on the most efficient way of carrying out clinical research, so that it benefits society by providing valuable research while simultaneously protecting and respecting the human subjects and the communities where the research is conducted. Collaboration between partners plays an important role and that is why we carried out a study to describe how collaborative partnership and social value are emerging in clinical research.A supra-analysis design for qualitative descriptive secondary analysis was employed to consider a novel research question that pertained to nurse leaders' perceptions of ethical recruitment in clinical research and the ethics-related aspects of clinical research from the perspective of administrative staff. The data consisted of two separate pre-existing datasets, comprising 451 pages from 41 interviews, and we considered the research question by using deductive-inductive content analysis with NVivo software. A deductive analysis matrix was generated on the basis of two requirements, namely collaborative partnership and social value, as presented in An Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research by Emanuel et al.The findings showed that collaborative partnership was a cornerstone for ethical clinical research and ways to foster inter-partner collaboration were indicated, such as supporting mutual respect and equality, shared goals and clearly defined roles and responsibilities. In addition, the social value of clinical research was an important precondition for ethical clinical research and its realisation required the research partners to demonstrate collaboration and shared responsibility during the research process. However, concerns emerged that the multidimensional meaning of clinical research for society was not fully recognised. Achieving greater social value for clinical research required greater transparency, setting research priorities, shared responsibility for the dissemination and use of the findings and stronger community awareness of the ethics-related aspects of clinical research.Collaborative partnership and social values are essential for protecting the human subjects and communities involved in clinical research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Given the history of unethical research in Indigenous communities, there is often apprehension among Indigenous communities toward research carried out by non-Indigenous researchers. We examined the approaches, experiences and motivations among non-Indigenous researchers at a research-intensive Canadian university conducting research with Indigenous communities to understand approaches to ethical research with Indigenous peoples. METHODS:We performed a critical constructivist qualitative study incorporating decolonizing methodologies. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 non-Indigenous University of Toronto researchers with a research focus/interest related to Indigenous health between August and October 2017. The interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed through an iterative process. Shared experiences among the researchers were arranged into primary themes. RESULTS:We identified 4 primary themes related to the conduct of Indigenous research by non-Indigenous researchers: 1) relationships with communities are foundational to the research process, 2) non-Indigenous researchers experience a personal self-reflective journey grounded in reconciliation, allyship and privilege, 3) accepted knowledge frameworks in Indigenous research are familiar to most but are inconsistently applied and 4) institutions act as barriers to and facilitators of ethical conduct of Indigenous research. Four core principles - relationships, trust, humility and accountability - unified the primary themes. INTERPRETATION:We identified strengths and areas for improvement of current policies and practices in Indigenous research by non-Indigenous researchers. Although non-Indigenous researchers value relationships, and their research is informed by Indigenous knowledge, institutional barriers to implementing recommended elements exist, and certain policy statements such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 lack applicability to secondary data analysis for some non-Indigenous researchers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This is a multi-method, in-depth, three part qualitative study exploring the regulation and practice of secondary research with tissue and data in a high-income country. We explore and compare the perspectives of researchers, research ethics committees (RECs) and other relevant professionals (e.g. pathologists and clinicians). We focus on points of contention because they demonstrate misalignment between the expectations, values and assumptions of these stakeholders. METHODS:This is a multi-method study using observational research, focus groups and interviews with 42 participants (conducted 2016-2017) and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Results are arranged under the following themes: consent; balancing the social value of the research with consent requirements; and harm. Our findings demonstrate different perspectives on the review process, styles of ethical reasoning and issues of concern. First, researchers and RECs disagreed about whether the cost of re-consenting patients satisfied the criterion of impracticability for consent waivers. Second, most researchers were skeptical that secondary research with already collected tissue and data could harm patients. Researchers often pointed to the harm arising from a failure to use existing material for research. RECs were concerned about the potential for secondary research to stigmatize communities. Third, researchers adopted a more consequentialist approach to decision-making, including some willingness to trade off the benefit of the research against the cost of getting consent; whereas RECs were more deontological and typically considered research benefit only after it had been established that re-consent was impractical. CONCLUSION:This research highlights ways in which RECs and researchers may be talking past each other, resulting in confusion and frustration. These finding provide a platform for realignment of the expectations of RECs and researchers, which could contribute to making research ethics review more effective.

Project description:BackgroundIn bioethics, especially nursing ethics, systematic reviews are increasingly popular. The overall aim of a systematic review is to provide an overview of the published discussions on a specific topic. While a meta-review on systematic reviews on normative bioethical literature has already been performed, there is no equivalent for systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics.ObjectiveThis meta-review aims to present the general trends and characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical bioethical literature and to evaluate their reporting quality.Research designLiterature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative approaches were used to evaluate the systematic reviews. Characteristics of systematic reviews were extracted and quantitatively analyzed. The reporting quality was measured using an adapted PRISMA checklist.FindingsSeventy-six reviews were selected for analysis. Most reviews came from the field of nursing (next to bioethics and medicine). Selected systematic reviews investigated issues related to clinical ethics (50%), followed by research ethics (36%) and public health ethics or organizational ethics (14%). In all, 72% of the systematic reviews included authors' ethical reflections on the findings and 59% provided ethical recommendations. Despite the heterogeneous reporting of the reviews, reviews using PRISMA tended to score better regarding reporting quality.DiscussionThe heterogeneity currently observed is due both to the interdisciplinary nature of nursing ethics and bioethics, and to the emerging nature of systematic review methods in these fields. These results confirm the findings of our previous review of systematic reviews on normative literature, thereby highlighting a recurring methodological gap in systematic reviews of bioethical literature. This also indicates the need to develop more robust methodological standards.ConclusionThrough its extensive overview of the characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics, this meta-review is expected to inform further discussions on minimal standards and reporting guidelines.

Dataset Information

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The value of bioethical research: A qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets