Cargando…

The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members

BACKGROUND: Research conducted following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or hurricanes is crucial for improving relief interventions. Such research, however, poses ethical, methodological and logistical challenges for researchers. Oversight of disaster research also poses challenges fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hunt, Matthew, Tansey, Catherine M., Anderson, James, Boulanger, Renaud F., Eckenwiler, Lisa, Pringle, John, Schwartz, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915681/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27327165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157142
_version_ 1782438720913276928
author Hunt, Matthew
Tansey, Catherine M.
Anderson, James
Boulanger, Renaud F.
Eckenwiler, Lisa
Pringle, John
Schwartz, Lisa
author_facet Hunt, Matthew
Tansey, Catherine M.
Anderson, James
Boulanger, Renaud F.
Eckenwiler, Lisa
Pringle, John
Schwartz, Lisa
author_sort Hunt, Matthew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Research conducted following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or hurricanes is crucial for improving relief interventions. Such research, however, poses ethical, methodological and logistical challenges for researchers. Oversight of disaster research also poses challenges for research ethics committees (RECs), in part due to the rapid turnaround needed to initiate research after a disaster. Currently, there is limited knowledge available about how RECs respond to and appraise disaster research. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the experiences of REC members who had reviewed disaster research conducted in low- or middle-income countries. METHODS: We used interpretive description methodology and conducted in-depth interviews with 15 respondents. Respondents were chairs, members, advisors, or coordinators from 13 RECs, including RECs affiliated with universities, governments, international organizations, a for-profit REC, and an ad hoc committee established during a disaster. Interviews were analyzed inductively using constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: Through this process, three elements were identified as characterizing effective and high-quality review: timeliness, responsiveness and rigorousness. To ensure timeliness, many RECs rely on adaptations of review procedures for urgent protocols. Respondents emphasized that responsive review requires awareness of and sensitivity to the particularities of disaster settings and disaster research. Rigorous review was linked with providing careful assessment of ethical considerations related to the research, as well as ensuring independence of the review process. CONCLUSION: Both the frequency of disasters and the conduct of disaster research are on the rise. Ensuring effective and high quality review of disaster research is crucial, yet challenges, including time pressures for urgent protocols, exist for achieving this goal. Adapting standard REC procedures may be necessary. However, steps should be taken to ensure that ethics review of disaster research remains diligent and thorough.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4915681
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49156812016-07-06 The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members Hunt, Matthew Tansey, Catherine M. Anderson, James Boulanger, Renaud F. Eckenwiler, Lisa Pringle, John Schwartz, Lisa PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Research conducted following natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or hurricanes is crucial for improving relief interventions. Such research, however, poses ethical, methodological and logistical challenges for researchers. Oversight of disaster research also poses challenges for research ethics committees (RECs), in part due to the rapid turnaround needed to initiate research after a disaster. Currently, there is limited knowledge available about how RECs respond to and appraise disaster research. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated the experiences of REC members who had reviewed disaster research conducted in low- or middle-income countries. METHODS: We used interpretive description methodology and conducted in-depth interviews with 15 respondents. Respondents were chairs, members, advisors, or coordinators from 13 RECs, including RECs affiliated with universities, governments, international organizations, a for-profit REC, and an ad hoc committee established during a disaster. Interviews were analyzed inductively using constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: Through this process, three elements were identified as characterizing effective and high-quality review: timeliness, responsiveness and rigorousness. To ensure timeliness, many RECs rely on adaptations of review procedures for urgent protocols. Respondents emphasized that responsive review requires awareness of and sensitivity to the particularities of disaster settings and disaster research. Rigorous review was linked with providing careful assessment of ethical considerations related to the research, as well as ensuring independence of the review process. CONCLUSION: Both the frequency of disasters and the conduct of disaster research are on the rise. Ensuring effective and high quality review of disaster research is crucial, yet challenges, including time pressures for urgent protocols, exist for achieving this goal. Adapting standard REC procedures may be necessary. However, steps should be taken to ensure that ethics review of disaster research remains diligent and thorough. Public Library of Science 2016-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4915681/ /pubmed/27327165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157142 Text en © 2016 Hunt et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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 author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hunt, Matthew
Tansey, Catherine M.
Anderson, James
Boulanger, Renaud F.
Eckenwiler, Lisa
Pringle, John
Schwartz, Lisa
The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members
title The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members
title_full The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members
title_fullStr The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members
title_full_unstemmed The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members
title_short The Challenge of Timely, Responsive and Rigorous Ethics Review of Disaster Research: Views of Research Ethics Committee Members
title_sort challenge of timely, responsive and rigorous ethics review of disaster research: views of research ethics committee members
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915681/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27327165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157142
work_keys_str_mv AT huntmatthew thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT tanseycatherinem thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT andersonjames thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT boulangerrenaudf thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT eckenwilerlisa thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT pringlejohn thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT schwartzlisa thechallengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT huntmatthew challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT tanseycatherinem challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT andersonjames challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT boulangerrenaudf challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT eckenwilerlisa challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT pringlejohn challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers
AT schwartzlisa challengeoftimelyresponsiveandrigorousethicsreviewofdisasterresearchviewsofresearchethicscommitteemembers