Ethical issues in research with second victims: A scoping review.

IF 2.9 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Nursing Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1177/09697330241238345
Lucía Catalán, María Kappes, Gabriela Morgado, Déborah Oliveira
{"title":"Ethical issues in research with second victims: A scoping review.","authors":"Lucía Catalán, María Kappes, Gabriela Morgado, Déborah Oliveira","doi":"10.1177/09697330241238345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Second victim is the name given to the healthcare personnel-most often a nursing professional-involved with the error that led to the adverse event to a patient and who, as a result, have experienced negative psychological effects. Research with second victims has increased over the years, however concerns exist with regards to the ethical risks imposed upon these individuals.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the extent to which research with second victims of adverse events in healthcare settings adhere to ethical requirements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and using the following databases: PUBMED, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. Original research of any study design focused on second victims and published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese in 2014-2023 were included. A critical narrative approach was used to discuss the findings.</p><p><strong>Ethical considerations: </strong>The review followed ethical guidelines emphasizing accurate authorship attribution and truthful data reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies using qualitative (<i>n</i> = 2), quantitative (<i>n</i> = 10), and mixed-method (<i>n</i> = 3) designs were included. Over half were not assessed by a research ethics committee, with questionable reasons given by the authors. One-third did not refer to having used an informed consent. In two studies, participants were recruited by their workplace superiors, which could potentially right to autonomy and voluntary participation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Over half of the included studies with second victims did not comply with fundamental ethical aspects, with risk to inflict respect for individual autonomy, confidentiality, and of not causing any harm to participants.</p><p><strong>Implications for nursing research: </strong>Healthcare personnel involved in adverse events are most often nursing professionals; therefore, any breach of ethics in research with this population is likely to directly affect their rights as research participants. We provide recommendations to promote better research practices with second victims towards safeguarding their rights as research participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":49729,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1413-1427"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330241238345","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Second victim is the name given to the healthcare personnel-most often a nursing professional-involved with the error that led to the adverse event to a patient and who, as a result, have experienced negative psychological effects. Research with second victims has increased over the years, however concerns exist with regards to the ethical risks imposed upon these individuals.

Aim: To explore the extent to which research with second victims of adverse events in healthcare settings adhere to ethical requirements.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and using the following databases: PUBMED, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. Original research of any study design focused on second victims and published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese in 2014-2023 were included. A critical narrative approach was used to discuss the findings.

Ethical considerations: The review followed ethical guidelines emphasizing accurate authorship attribution and truthful data reporting.

Results: Fifteen studies using qualitative (n = 2), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed-method (n = 3) designs were included. Over half were not assessed by a research ethics committee, with questionable reasons given by the authors. One-third did not refer to having used an informed consent. In two studies, participants were recruited by their workplace superiors, which could potentially right to autonomy and voluntary participation.

Conclusion: Over half of the included studies with second victims did not comply with fundamental ethical aspects, with risk to inflict respect for individual autonomy, confidentiality, and of not causing any harm to participants.

Implications for nursing research: Healthcare personnel involved in adverse events are most often nursing professionals; therefore, any breach of ethics in research with this population is likely to directly affect their rights as research participants. We provide recommendations to promote better research practices with second victims towards safeguarding their rights as research participants.

对第二受害者进行研究的伦理问题:范围审查。
背景:第二受害者是指与导致患者发生不良事件的错误有关的医护人员(通常是护理专业人员),他们因此受到了负面的心理影响。近年来,针对第二受害者的研究越来越多,但人们对这些人面临的伦理风险表示担忧。目的:探讨针对医疗机构中不良事件第二受害者的研究在多大程度上符合伦理要求:方法:按照 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的方法论框架,使用以下数据库进行了范围审查:PUBMED、Web of Science 和 SCOPUS。收录了 2014-2023 年间以英语、西班牙语或葡萄牙语发表的以第二受害者为研究对象的任何研究设计的原创性研究。伦理考虑因素:综述遵循伦理准则,强调准确的作者归属和真实的数据报告:共纳入了 15 项采用定性(n = 2)、定量(n = 10)和混合方法(n = 3)设计的研究。超过一半的研究未经研究伦理委员会评估,作者给出的理由也值得商榷。三分之一的研究未提及使用了知情同意书。在两项研究中,参与者是由其工作单位的上司招募的,这可能会影响其自主性和自愿参与性:结论:半数以上涉及第二受害者的研究不符合基本的伦理要求,有可能在尊重个人自主权、保密性和不对参与者造成任何伤害等方面存在问题:对护理研究的启示:涉及不良事件的医护人员通常都是护理专业人员;因此,在针对这类人群的研究中,任何违反伦理的行为都可能直接影响到他们作为研究参与者的权利。我们提出了一些建议,以促进对第二受害者进行更好的研究实践,从而保障他们作为研究参与者的权利。
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
Nursing Ethics
Nursing Ethics 医学-护理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
11.90%
发文量
117
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Ethics takes a practical approach to this complex subject and relates each topic to the working environment. The articles on ethical and legal issues are written in a comprehensible style and official documents are analysed in a user-friendly way. The international Editorial Board ensures the selection of a wide range of high quality articles of global significance.
×
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