Cargando…

Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results

INTRODUCTION: The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Holly A., Porter, Kathryn M., Sullivan, Connor, McCormick, Jennifer B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36756077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.470
_version_ 1784878790897303552
author Taylor, Holly A.
Porter, Kathryn M.
Sullivan, Connor
McCormick, Jennifer B.
author_facet Taylor, Holly A.
Porter, Kathryn M.
Sullivan, Connor
McCormick, Jennifer B.
author_sort Taylor, Holly A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has changed over the last decade. METHODS: The survey instrument was based on the survey previously circulated. We included a number of survey domains from the previous survey with the goal of direct comparison of outcomes. The survey was sent to 57 RECS in the USA and Canada. RESULTS: Forty-nine surveys were completed for an overall response rate of 86%. With the passing of 10 years, the volume of consults received by RECS surveyed has increased. The number of consults received by a subset of RECS remains low. RECS continues to receive requests for consults from a wide range of stakeholders. About a quarter of RECS surveyed actively evaluate their services, primarily through satisfaction surveys routinely shared with requestors. The number of RECS evaluating their services has increased. We identified a group of eight key competencies respondents find as key to providing RECS. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our survey demonstrate that there have been growth and development of RECS since 2010. Further developing evaluation and competency guidelines will help existing RECS continue to grow and facilitate newly established RECS maturation. Both will allow RECS personnel to better serve their institutions and add value to the research conducted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9879897
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98798972023-02-07 Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results Taylor, Holly A. Porter, Kathryn M. Sullivan, Connor McCormick, Jennifer B. J Clin Transl Sci Research Article INTRODUCTION: The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has changed over the last decade. METHODS: The survey instrument was based on the survey previously circulated. We included a number of survey domains from the previous survey with the goal of direct comparison of outcomes. The survey was sent to 57 RECS in the USA and Canada. RESULTS: Forty-nine surveys were completed for an overall response rate of 86%. With the passing of 10 years, the volume of consults received by RECS surveyed has increased. The number of consults received by a subset of RECS remains low. RECS continues to receive requests for consults from a wide range of stakeholders. About a quarter of RECS surveyed actively evaluate their services, primarily through satisfaction surveys routinely shared with requestors. The number of RECS evaluating their services has increased. We identified a group of eight key competencies respondents find as key to providing RECS. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our survey demonstrate that there have been growth and development of RECS since 2010. Further developing evaluation and competency guidelines will help existing RECS continue to grow and facilitate newly established RECS maturation. Both will allow RECS personnel to better serve their institutions and add value to the research conducted. Cambridge University Press 2022-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9879897/ /pubmed/36756077 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.470 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 To the extent this is a work of the US Government, it is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Clinical and Translational Science. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Taylor, Holly A.
Porter, Kathryn M.
Sullivan, Connor
McCormick, Jennifer B.
Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results
title Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results
title_full Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results
title_fullStr Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results
title_full_unstemmed Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results
title_short Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results
title_sort current landscape of research ethics consultation services: national survey results
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9879897/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36756077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.470
work_keys_str_mv AT taylorhollya currentlandscapeofresearchethicsconsultationservicesnationalsurveyresults
AT porterkathrynm currentlandscapeofresearchethicsconsultationservicesnationalsurveyresults
AT sullivanconnor currentlandscapeofresearchethicsconsultationservicesnationalsurveyresults
AT mccormickjenniferb currentlandscapeofresearchethicsconsultationservicesnationalsurveyresults