Evaluation of School of health students' ethics position in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: The advances in science and technology increasingly lead to the appearance of ethical issues and to the complexity of care. Therefore, it is important to define the ethics position of students studying in health departments so that high quality patient care can be achieved. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the ethics position of the students at Shool of Health of an University in western Turkey. METHODS: The study design was descriptive and cross-sectional. The study population included 540 first, second, third, and fourth year students from the Departments of Nursing, Midwifery, and Rescue and Disaster Management in the 2013-2014 academic year. Data were collected with a Personal Identification Form and The Ethics Position Questionnaire. Obtained data were analyzed with Chi-square test, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Nested Analysis of Variance. Ethical considerations: Before conducting the research, approval was obtained from Ege University Clinical Research Ethics Committee in Izmir and written informed consent was taken from all the participants. FINDINGS: There was no significant difference in the mean scores for the Ethics Position Questionnaire between the students in terms of years and fields of study. Although the mean scores for the subscale idealism did not differ between fields of study, the mean scores significantly differed between years of study. However, the mean scores for the subscale relativism did not differ in terms of years and fields of study. DISCUSSION: Whether students are idealistic or relativistic in terms of ethical judgment will be effective in ethical decision-making skills during patient care. Therefore, we need to define the factors that influence students' ethics position in the future. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that the courses and practices that teach students to be aware of their ethics position to create an ethical outlook can be placed in the curriculum in health schools.

Corporate Funding for Schools of Public Health: Confronting the Ethical and Economic Challenges.

We discuss the public and private sponsoring of university research and the issues it raises in a context of diminished federal funding. We consider research funding at schools of public health and why these schools have historically had weaker links to industry than have other academic units. We argue that the possibility of enhanced links with industry at schools of public health may raise specific concerns beyond those facing universities generally. Six issues should be considered before entering into these relationships: (1) the effects on research orientation, (2) unacceptability of some funders, (3) potential threats to objectivity and academic freedom, (4) effects on academic standards, (5) the effects on dissemination of knowledge, and (6) reputational risks.

La Neonatología, primera Área de Capacitación Específica de la Pediatría en Espana / Neonatology, the First Specific Training Area of Paediatrics in Spain

No disponible

New graduate students' baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research.

PURPOSE: To assess (1) new biomedical science graduate students' baseline knowledge of core concepts and standards in responsible conduct of research (RCR), (2) differences in graduate students' baseline knowledge overall and across the Office of Research Integrity's nine core areas, and (3) demographic and educational factors in these differences. METHOD: A 30-question, computer-scored multiple-choice test on core concepts and standards of RCR was developed following content analysis of 20 United States-published RCR texts, and combined with demographic questions on undergraduate experience with RCR developed from graduate student focus groups. Four hundred two new graduate students at three health science universities were recruited for Scantron and online testing before beginning RCR instruction. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-one of 402 eligible trainees (62%) at three universities completed the test; scores ranged from 26.7% to 83.3%, with a mean of 59.5%. Only seven (3%) participants scored 80% or above. Students who received their undergraduate education outside the United States scored significantly lower (mean 52.0%) than those with U.S. bachelor's degrees (mean 60.5%, P < .001). Participants with prior graduate biomedical or health professions education scored marginally higher than new students, but both groups' mean scores were well below 80%. The mean score of 16 participants who reported previous graduate-level RCR instruction was 67.7%. Participants' specific knowledge varied, but overall scores were universally low. CONCLUSIONS: New graduate biomedical sciences students have inadequate and inconsistent knowledge of RCR, irrespective of their prior education or experience. Incoming trainees with previous graduate RCR education may also have gaps in core knowledge.