Cargando…

Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review

BACKGROUND: Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schofield, Guy, Dittborn, Mariana, Selman, Lucy Ellen, Huxtable, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34587950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00700-9
_version_ 1784576319970869248
author Schofield, Guy
Dittborn, Mariana
Selman, Lucy Ellen
Huxtable, Richard
author_facet Schofield, Guy
Dittborn, Mariana
Selman, Lucy Ellen
Huxtable, Richard
author_sort Schofield, Guy
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature. METHODS: Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in any context, extracting data on definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021. RESULTS: 393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study. CONCLUSIONS: Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8479723
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84797232021-09-30 Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review Schofield, Guy Dittborn, Mariana Selman, Lucy Ellen Huxtable, Richard BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: Despite its ubiquity in academic research, the phrase ‘ethical challenge(s)’ appears to lack an agreed definition. A lack of a definition risks introducing confusion or avoidable bias. Conceptual clarity is a key component of research, both theoretical and empirical. Using a rapid review methodology, we sought to review definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ and closely related terms as used in current healthcare research literature. METHODS: Rapid review to identify peer-reviewed reports examining ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in any context, extracting data on definitions of ‘ethical challenge(s)’ in use, and synonymous use of closely related terms in the general manuscript text. Data were analysed using content analysis. Four databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from April 2016 to April 2021. RESULTS: 393 records were screened, with 72 studies eligible and included: 53 empirical studies, 17 structured reviews and 2 review protocols. 12/72 (17%) contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s), two of which were shared, resulting in 11 unique definitions. Within these 11 definitions, four approaches were identified: definition through concepts; reference to moral conflict, moral uncertainty or difficult choices; definition by participants; and challenges linked to emotional or moral distress. Each definition contained one or more of these approaches, but none contained all four. 68/72 (94%) included studies used terms closely related to synonymously refer to ‘ethical challenge(s)’ within their manuscript text, with 32 different terms identified and between one and eight different terms mentioned per study. CONCLUSIONS: Only 12/72 studies contained an explicit definition of ‘ethical challenge(s)’, with significant variety in scope and complexity. This variation risks confusion and biasing data analysis and results, reducing confidence in research findings. Further work on establishing acceptable definitional content is needed to inform future bioethics research. BioMed Central 2021-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8479723/ /pubmed/34587950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00700-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Schofield, Guy
Dittborn, Mariana
Selman, Lucy Ellen
Huxtable, Richard
Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
title Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
title_full Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
title_fullStr Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
title_full_unstemmed Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
title_short Defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
title_sort defining ethical challenge(s) in healthcare research: a rapid review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8479723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34587950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00700-9
work_keys_str_mv AT schofieldguy definingethicalchallengesinhealthcareresearcharapidreview
AT dittbornmariana definingethicalchallengesinhealthcareresearcharapidreview
AT selmanlucyellen definingethicalchallengesinhealthcareresearcharapidreview
AT huxtablerichard definingethicalchallengesinhealthcareresearcharapidreview