Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives.

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Medicine Health Care and Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-28 DOI:10.1007/s11019-023-10169-5
Sarah Potthoff, Christin Hempeler, Jakov Gather, Astrid Gieselmann, Jochen Vollmann, Matthé Scholten
{"title":"Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives.","authors":"Sarah Potthoff, Christin Hempeler, Jakov Gather, Astrid Gieselmann, Jochen Vollmann, Matthé Scholten","doi":"10.1007/s11019-023-10169-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethics review of qualitative health research poses various challenges that are due to a mismatch between the current practice of ethics review and the nature of qualitative methodology. The process of obtaining ethics approval for a study by a research ethics committee before the start of a research study has been described as \"procedural ethics\" and the identification and handling of ethical issues by researchers during the research process as \"ethics in practice.\" While some authors dispute and other authors defend the use of procedural ethics in relation to qualitative health research, there is general agreement that it needs to be supplemented with ethics in practice. This article aims to provide an illustration of research ethics in practice by reflecting on the ways in which we identified and addressed ethical and methodological issues that arose in the context of an interview study with mental health service users and relatives. We describe the challenges we faced and the solutions we found in relation to the potential vulnerability of research participants, the voluntariness of consent, the increase of participant access and the heterogeneity of the sample, the protection of privacy and internal confidentiality, and the consideration of personal and contextual factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10725844/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-023-10169-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ethics review of qualitative health research poses various challenges that are due to a mismatch between the current practice of ethics review and the nature of qualitative methodology. The process of obtaining ethics approval for a study by a research ethics committee before the start of a research study has been described as "procedural ethics" and the identification and handling of ethical issues by researchers during the research process as "ethics in practice." While some authors dispute and other authors defend the use of procedural ethics in relation to qualitative health research, there is general agreement that it needs to be supplemented with ethics in practice. This article aims to provide an illustration of research ethics in practice by reflecting on the ways in which we identified and addressed ethical and methodological issues that arose in the context of an interview study with mental health service users and relatives. We describe the challenges we faced and the solutions we found in relation to the potential vulnerability of research participants, the voluntariness of consent, the increase of participant access and the heterogeneity of the sample, the protection of privacy and internal confidentiality, and the consideration of personal and contextual factors.

实践中的研究伦理:以精神健康服务使用者和亲属为对象的定性健康研究中遇到的伦理问题分析。
由于目前的伦理审查实践与定性方法的性质不匹配,定性健康研究的伦理审查面临着各种挑战。研究伦理委员会在研究开始前对研究进行伦理审批的过程被称为 "程序伦理",而研究人员在研究过程中对伦理问题的识别和处理被称为 "实践伦理"。虽然有些作者对在定性健康研究中使用程序性伦理提出异议,有些作者则为其辩护,但人们普遍认为需要用实践中的伦理来补充程序性伦理。本文旨在通过反思我们在对精神健康服务使用者及其亲属进行访谈研究时发现并解决伦理和方法问题的方式,来说明实践中的研究伦理。我们描述了在以下方面我们所面临的挑战和找到的解决方案:研究参与者的潜在脆弱性、同意的自愿性、参与者访问量的增加和样本的异质性、隐私和内部机密的保护以及对个人和背景因素的考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信