Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.329
Filtrar
2.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(3): e31, 2021 Jan 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33463097

RESUMEN

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has caused a breakdown in the healthcare system worldwide. The need to rapidly update guidelines in order to control the transmission in the population and for evidenced-based healthcare care has led to the need for timely, voluminous and valid research. Amid the quest for a vaccine and better therapies, researchers clamouring for information has led to a wide variety of ethical issues due to the unique situation. This paper aims to examine the positive and negative aspects of recent changes in the process of obtaining informed consent. The article outlines the various aspects, from history, previously described exemptions to consenting as well as those implemented during the pandemic and the current impact of virtual methods. Further, the authors make recommendations based on the outcome of suggested adjustments described in the literature. This article looks into increasing the awareness of physicians and researchers about ethical issues that need to be addressed to provide optimal care for patients while assuring their integrity and confidentiality.


Asunto(s)
Consentimiento Informado/ética , Edición/ética , /prevención & control , /transmisión , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Disparidades en Atención de Salud/ética , Humanos , Pandemias , Educación del Paciente como Asunto/ética , Relaciones Médico-Paciente/ética
3.
Niger Postgrad Med J ; 27(3): 250-258, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32687128

RESUMEN

Research misconduct policy (RMP) is a legal document that shows the definitions of the various types of misconduct, describes the inquiry and investigation of allegations, and the appropriate penalties that should be imposed. The presence of the adopted RMP on the website of a university or postgraduate college is an indication of the level of commitment to promote the proper handling of misconduct cases. Perusal of the websites of top universities in developing countries revealed that many do not have RMP on their websites. The probable starting point for combating research misconduct at the national or institutional level is by acquisition of RMP. The purpose of this article is to propose a modern, structured and cost-effective RMP for universities and postgraduate colleges in developing countries. The bibliographic database, PubMed, was searched using the terms 'research misconduct' and 'research misconduct policy'. All relevant articles from the search and some RMPs of universities, national agencies and global health organisations available on the Internet were carefully studied. A formulated RMP, based on the Final Rule of the United States, Public Health Services Policies on Research Misconduct of 2005 and the Regulations of the University Grants Commission of India of 2018, is hereby presented. In the proposed RMP, plagiarism was stratified into four levels in ascending order of severity so that imposed penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct. The zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core work areas was adopted. The proposed RMP was designed to act as a template. It should be modified as required based on the prevailing local circumstances and made fit for purpose. Universities, postgraduate colleges and journals should have RMP on the homepage of their websites.


Asunto(s)
Autoria/normas , Investigación Biomédica/ética , Plagio , Edición/ética , Investigadores/ética , Mala Conducta Científica/ética , Academias e Institutos , Países en Desarrollo , Ética en Investigación , Humanos , Revisión por Pares/normas , Edición/normas , Universidades
5.
Am Psychol ; 75(5): 644-654, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32437180

RESUMEN

Psychologists are in a position to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic through research, practice, education, and advocacy. However, concerns exist about the ethical implications associated with transitioning from face-to-face to online or virtual formats as necessitated by stay-at-home orders designed to enforce the social distancing required to flatten the curve of new COVID-19 cases. The purpose of this article is to review potential ethical issues and to provide guidance to psychologists for ethical conduct in the midst of the current crisis and its aftermath. In addition to contextualizing relevant ethical considerations according to the principles and standards of the current American Psychological Association's ethics code, vignettes are presented to exemplify the ethical dilemmas psychologists in various roles may face when responding to COVID-19 and to offer suggestions and resources for resolving potential conflicts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).


Asunto(s)
Códigos de Ética , Infecciones por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Neumonía Viral , Psicología/ética , Telemedicina/ética , Betacoronavirus , Competencia Clínica , Confidencialidad/ética , Documentación/ética , Ética en Investigación , Guías como Asunto , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Edición/ética , Investigación , Sociedades Científicas
6.
Int J Epidemiol ; 49(1): 281-288, 2020 02 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32244256

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Duplicate and salami publication are unethical, but are common practices with substantial consequences for science and society at large. Scientific journals are the 'gatekeepers' of the publication process. We investigated journal policies on duplicate and salami publication. METHODS: In 2018, we performed a content analysis of policies of journals in the disciplines of 'epidemiology and public health' and 'general and internal medicine'. Journal policies were searched, extracted, coded and cross-checked. The associations of disciplinary categories and journal impact factors with journal policies were examined using Poisson regression models with a robust error variance. RESULTS: A total of 209 journals, including 122 in epidemiology and public health and 87 in general and internal medicine, were sampled and their policies investigated. Overall, 18% of journals did not have any policies on either practice, 33% only referred to a generic guideline or checklist without explicit mention about either practice, 36% included policies on duplicate publication and only 13% included policies on both duplicate and salami publication. Having explicit journal policies did not differ by journal disciplinary categories (epidemiology and public health vs general and internal medicine) or impact factors. Further analysis of journals with explicit policies found that although duplicate publication is universally discouraged, policies on salami publication are inconsistent and lack specific definitions of inappropriate divisions of papers. CONCLUSIONS: Gaps exist in journal policies on duplicate and salami publication, characterized by an overall lack of explicit policies, inconsistency and confusion in definitions of bad practices, and lack of clearly defined consequences for non-compliance. Scientific publication and the academic reward systems must evolve to credit good research practice.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , Políticas Editoriales , Edición/ética , Mala Conducta Científica , Humanos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto
7.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther ; 50(3): 116-117, 2020 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32116100

RESUMEN

The integrity of published scientific literature relies on transparency. There are processes in place to promote transparency and enhance the trustworthiness of study results. Journals, including the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT), require full disclosure of competing interests when authors submit manuscripts for publication. A competing interest is "a financial or intellectual relationship that may impact an individual's ability to approach a scientific question with an open mind." The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the types of competing interests that may influence the work of authors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(3):116-117. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0103.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , Conflicto de Intereses , Edición/ética , Revelación , Humanos
9.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 56(3)2020 Mar 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32178434

RESUMEN

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.


Asunto(s)
Autoria/normas , Edición/ética , Humanos , Edición/normas
10.
Gac Med Mex ; 156(1): 53-59, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32026884

RESUMEN

In this essay, the bioethical implications of the recent genetic manipulation in human embryos with CRISPR-Cas9 to eliminate the CCR5 gene and the birth of a pair of discordant twin girls are analyzed. The experiment was disseminated via social media. The main bioethical flaws identified include the justification of the model, the informed consent process and the lack of disclosure of evident conflicts of interest. The consequences of the experiment on the life of the twins that were born were not properly evaluated, such as the impact on their autonomy, the alleged benefits to be received and the future risks of harm during their lifetime. Having manipulated the germ cell line, the effects on their future offspring were not considered. This type of actions negatively affects the way society conceives science. Genetic engineering should be reserved to the basic experimental context or as clinical research for the correction of known serious diseases of genetic origin under strict regulatory and bioethical supervision and using a gradualist approach in accordance with the advances of gene editing techniques.


Asunto(s)
Sistemas CRISPR-Cas , Edición Génica/ética , Receptores CCR5/genética , Discusiones Bioéticas , China , Conflicto de Intereses , Femenino , Ingeniería Genética/clasificación , Ingeniería Genética/ética , Genoma Humano , Infecciones por VIH/prevención & control , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado/ética , Edición/ética , Proyectos de Investigación , Inyecciones de Esperma Intracitoplasmáticas , Experimentación Humana Terapéutica/ética , Gemelos Dicigóticos
13.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 214(1): 1-2, 2020 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31860355
16.
BMC Med Ethics ; 20(1): 94, 2019 12 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31805918

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Ethical considerations play a prominent role in the protection of human subjects in clinical research. To date the disclosure of ethical protection in clinical research published in the international nursing journals has not been explored. Our research objective was to investigate the reporting of ethical approval and informed consent in clinical research published in leading international nursing journals. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study. All clinical research published in the five leading international nursing journals from the SCI Journal Citation Reports between 2015 and 2017 were retrieved to evaluate for evidence of ethical review. RESULTS: A total of 2041 citations have been identified from the contents of all the five leading nursing journals that were published between 2015 and 2017. Out of these, 1284 clinical studies have been included and text relating to ethical review has been extracted. From these, most of prospective clinical studies (87.5%) discussed informed consent. Only half of those (52.9%) reported that written informed consent had been obtained; few (3.6%) reported oral consent, and few (6.8%) used other methods such as online consent or completion and return of data collection (such as surveys) to denote assent. Notably, 36.2% of those did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent and merely described that "consent was obtained from participants or participants agreed to join in the research". Furthermore, whilst most of clinical studies (93.7%) mentioned ethical approval; 92.5% of those stated the name of ethical committee and interestingly, only 37.1% of those mentioned the ethical approval reference. The rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different study type, country, and whether financial support was received (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The reporting of ethics in leading international nursing journals demonstrates progress, but improvement of the transparency and the standard of ethical reporting in nursing clinical research is required.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Consentimiento Informado , Atención de Enfermería , Edición/ética , Confidencialidad/ética , Políticas Editoriales , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Estudios Retrospectivos
17.
Indian J Med Ethics ; 4 (NS)(4): 288-293, 2019.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31791937

RESUMEN

This paper examines the issues related to conflict of interest (COI) in generation and dissemination of evidence from systematic reviews and its influence on evidence in developing public health policy. Several examples exist on COI in the health and nutrition field due to the influence of private corporations and funding institutions. COI is an important factor contributing to publication bias in primary studies because of dynamics such as delayed publication, suppression of negative findings, and falsifying of data, thus influencing systematic review findings. Systematic review findings have also been found to be biased because of financial and/or non-financial COI. A set of recommendations, such as increased government funding towards research, explicit COI policies in journals, clinical trial data transparency, and methodological guidelines, including COI compliance while conducting and reporting systematic reviews, is proposed. The government has a larger role in regulating COI in production and reporting of evidence and its use in public policy decision-making.


Asunto(s)
Conflicto de Intereses , Políticas Editoriales , Política de Salud , Política Pública , Edición/ética , Edición/normas , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Humanos , India
18.
Hastings Cent Rep ; 49(6): 10-12, 2019 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31813180

RESUMEN

Can one publish a bioethics case ethically? I suspect that most in bioethics would feel comfortable publishing a case if the subject-the patient-gave explicit permission, the amount of biographical information revealed was under the control of the subject, and the subject fully understood the benefits and risks of publishing the case. Some might add that the subject should have a chance to approve the final representation. I think that the ethics of publishing cases needs to be rethought. And this rethinking needs to be focused not on the way publishing a case might harm a patient (that is, nonmaleficence) but, rather, on how a case presentation does not convey the patient's own voice in the narrative (that is, respect for autonomy). Bioethics needs a new model of case presentation: the polyphonic case, which demands that the subject be a part of the case's construction.


Asunto(s)
Ética Médica , Edición/ética , Confidencialidad/ética , Confidencialidad/normas , Humanos , Autonomía Personal
19.
Hastings Cent Rep ; 49(6): 17-21, 2019 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31813186

RESUMEN

Since antiquity, doctors have employed case reports as an essential and ongoing part in communicating information about patients and their diseases to their colleagues and, at times, to the wider, nonmedical world. Given how useful case reports have been, a legitimate and persuasive argument could be made to retain them in modern medical literature. But there is an emerging problem with case reports. As the ability to publish and disseminate the information contained in them has become easier, the capacity for individuals to maintain their privacy and restrict access to their personal information has become more strained, and it has become more difficult for doctors who tell clinical stories to respect the confidentiality of their patients while still communicating the pertinent details of their cases. Does the acknowledged educational and scientific value of (some) case reports justify the threat to personal privacy that may be entailed by the format itself?


Asunto(s)
Confidencialidad/normas , Ética Médica , Edición/ética , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado
20.
J Korean Med Sci ; 34(45): e300, 2019 Nov 25.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31760713

RESUMEN

Scientific hypotheses are essential for progress in rapidly developing academic disciplines. Proposing new ideas and hypotheses require thorough analyses of evidence-based data and predictions of the implications. One of the main concerns relates to the ethical implications of the generated hypotheses. The authors may need to outline potential benefits and limitations of their suggestions and target widely visible publication outlets to ignite discussion by experts and start testing the hypotheses. Not many publication outlets are currently welcoming hypotheses and unconventional ideas that may open gates to criticism and conservative remarks. A few scholarly journals guide the authors on how to structure hypotheses. Reflecting on general and specific issues around the subject matter is often recommended for drafting a well-structured hypothesis article. An analysis of influential hypotheses, presented in this article, particularly Strachan's hygiene hypothesis with global implications in the field of immunology and allergy, points to the need for properly interpreting and testing new suggestions. Envisaging the ethical implications of the hypotheses should be considered both by authors and journal editors during the writing and publishing process.


Asunto(s)
Revisión de la Investigación por Pares , Edición , Humanos , Revisión de la Investigación por Pares/ética , Edición/ética , Medios de Comunicación Sociales
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...