Cargando…

A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives

BACKGROUND: The boundaries between health-related research and practice have become blurred as initiatives traditionally considered to be practice (e.g., quality improvement, program evaluation) increasingly use the same methodology as research. Further, the application of different ethical requirem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ondrusek, Nancy K., Willison, Donald J., Haroun, Vinita, Bell, Jennifer A. H., Bornbaum, Catherine C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26149410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0039-3
_version_ 1782380151608180736
author Ondrusek, Nancy K.
Willison, Donald J.
Haroun, Vinita
Bell, Jennifer A. H.
Bornbaum, Catherine C.
author_facet Ondrusek, Nancy K.
Willison, Donald J.
Haroun, Vinita
Bell, Jennifer A. H.
Bornbaum, Catherine C.
author_sort Ondrusek, Nancy K.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The boundaries between health-related research and practice have become blurred as initiatives traditionally considered to be practice (e.g., quality improvement, program evaluation) increasingly use the same methodology as research. Further, the application of different ethical requirements based on this distinction raises concerns because many initiatives commonly labelled as “non-research” are associated with risks to patients, participants, and other stakeholders, yet may not be subject to any ethical oversight. Accordingly, we sought to develop a tool to facilitate the systematic identification of risks to human participants and determination of risk level across a broad range of projects (e.g., clinical research, laboratory-based projects, population-based surveillance, and program evaluation) and health-related contexts. This paper describes the development of the Public Health Ontario (PHO) Risk Screening Tool. METHOD: Development of the PHO Risk Screening Tool included: (1) preparation of a draft risk tool (n = 47 items); (2) expert appraisal; (3) internal stakeholder validation; (4) external validation; (5) pilot testing and evalution of the draft tool; and (6) revision after 1 year of testing. RESULTS: A risk screening tool was generated consisting of 20 items organized into five risk domains: Sensitivity; Participant Selection, Recruitment and Consent; Data/Sample Collection; Identifiability and Privacy Risk; and Commercial Interests. The PHO Risk Screening Tool is an electronic tool, designed to identify potential project-associated risks to participants and communities and to determine what level of ethics review is required, if any. The tool features an easy to use checklist format that generates a risk score (0–3) associated with a suggested level of ethics review once all items have been completed. The final score is based on a threshold approach to ensure that the final score represents the highest level of risk identified in any of the domains of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: The PHO Risk Screening Tool offers a practical solution to the problem of how to maintain accountability and appropriate risk oversight that transcends the boundaries of research and practice. We hope that the PHO Risk Screening Tool will prove useful in minimizing the problems of over and under protection across a wide range of disciplines and jurisdictions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0039-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4494793
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44947932015-07-08 A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives Ondrusek, Nancy K. Willison, Donald J. Haroun, Vinita Bell, Jennifer A. H. Bornbaum, Catherine C. BMC Med Ethics Technical Advance BACKGROUND: The boundaries between health-related research and practice have become blurred as initiatives traditionally considered to be practice (e.g., quality improvement, program evaluation) increasingly use the same methodology as research. Further, the application of different ethical requirements based on this distinction raises concerns because many initiatives commonly labelled as “non-research” are associated with risks to patients, participants, and other stakeholders, yet may not be subject to any ethical oversight. Accordingly, we sought to develop a tool to facilitate the systematic identification of risks to human participants and determination of risk level across a broad range of projects (e.g., clinical research, laboratory-based projects, population-based surveillance, and program evaluation) and health-related contexts. This paper describes the development of the Public Health Ontario (PHO) Risk Screening Tool. METHOD: Development of the PHO Risk Screening Tool included: (1) preparation of a draft risk tool (n = 47 items); (2) expert appraisal; (3) internal stakeholder validation; (4) external validation; (5) pilot testing and evalution of the draft tool; and (6) revision after 1 year of testing. RESULTS: A risk screening tool was generated consisting of 20 items organized into five risk domains: Sensitivity; Participant Selection, Recruitment and Consent; Data/Sample Collection; Identifiability and Privacy Risk; and Commercial Interests. The PHO Risk Screening Tool is an electronic tool, designed to identify potential project-associated risks to participants and communities and to determine what level of ethics review is required, if any. The tool features an easy to use checklist format that generates a risk score (0–3) associated with a suggested level of ethics review once all items have been completed. The final score is based on a threshold approach to ensure that the final score represents the highest level of risk identified in any of the domains of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: The PHO Risk Screening Tool offers a practical solution to the problem of how to maintain accountability and appropriate risk oversight that transcends the boundaries of research and practice. We hope that the PHO Risk Screening Tool will prove useful in minimizing the problems of over and under protection across a wide range of disciplines and jurisdictions. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0039-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4494793/ /pubmed/26149410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0039-3 Text en © Ondrusek et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Ondrusek, Nancy K.
Willison, Donald J.
Haroun, Vinita
Bell, Jennifer A. H.
Bornbaum, Catherine C.
A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
title A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
title_full A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
title_fullStr A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
title_full_unstemmed A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
title_short A risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
title_sort risk screening tool for ethical appraisal of evidence-generating initiatives
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4494793/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26149410
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0039-3
work_keys_str_mv AT ondruseknancyk ariskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT willisondonaldj ariskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT harounvinita ariskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT belljenniferah ariskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT bornbaumcatherinec ariskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT ondruseknancyk riskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT willisondonaldj riskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT harounvinita riskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT belljenniferah riskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives
AT bornbaumcatherinec riskscreeningtoolforethicalappraisalofevidencegeneratinginitiatives