Ethics Committees' Practices in Healthcare, Banking and Research: Key Requirements for Their Functionality

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tuğba Arık, Susanne Michl
{"title":"Ethics Committees' Practices in Healthcare, Banking and Research: Key Requirements for Their Functionality","authors":"Tuğba Arık,&nbsp;Susanne Michl","doi":"10.1111/jep.14310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>To meet concerns about ethical and unethical behavior in their work environments and workplaces, organizations began establishing ethics programs that contain ethics committees (ECs). There is now a tradition and diverse use of ECs for ethical decision-making in many different organizational settings. In addition, ECs have been subject to many publications in books and articles in the scientific literature. Yet, until now no comparative analysis has been published that brings together ECs' practices in different sectors.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This article aims to bridge this knowledge gap and illustrate which main requirements for ECs' practices need to be addressed to help ECs meet their anticipated functions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>To do so, this paper lays out a study based on an exploratory, qualitative design using focus groups and individual expert interviews that compare ECs' practices in the healthcare, banking, and scientific research sectors (as far as dual use of research is concerned).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Based on the results of this study we were able to make a distinction between two main categories: <i>moral authority</i> and <i>trustworthiness</i>. We were also able to identify three sub-categories: <i>legitimation</i>, <i>mode</i>, and <i>outreach</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Based on the exploratory analysis in this study, we conclude that there are the following three distinct main requirements for the functionality of ECs: (1) a dialog between EC members and other stakeholders, (2) an approach that considers various possible modes (reactive, screening, moderating, and preventive) to enhance the quality of ECs’ decision-making processes and (3) an outreach to all relevant EC stakeholders for the further validation of the main requirements found for ECs functionality.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11771612/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14310","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

To meet concerns about ethical and unethical behavior in their work environments and workplaces, organizations began establishing ethics programs that contain ethics committees (ECs). There is now a tradition and diverse use of ECs for ethical decision-making in many different organizational settings. In addition, ECs have been subject to many publications in books and articles in the scientific literature. Yet, until now no comparative analysis has been published that brings together ECs' practices in different sectors.

Aims and Objectives

This article aims to bridge this knowledge gap and illustrate which main requirements for ECs' practices need to be addressed to help ECs meet their anticipated functions.

Method

To do so, this paper lays out a study based on an exploratory, qualitative design using focus groups and individual expert interviews that compare ECs' practices in the healthcare, banking, and scientific research sectors (as far as dual use of research is concerned).

Results

Based on the results of this study we were able to make a distinction between two main categories: moral authority and trustworthiness. We were also able to identify three sub-categories: legitimation, mode, and outreach.

Conclusion

Based on the exploratory analysis in this study, we conclude that there are the following three distinct main requirements for the functionality of ECs: (1) a dialog between EC members and other stakeholders, (2) an approach that considers various possible modes (reactive, screening, moderating, and preventive) to enhance the quality of ECs’ decision-making processes and (3) an outreach to all relevant EC stakeholders for the further validation of the main requirements found for ECs functionality.

伦理委员会在医疗保健、银行业和研究领域的实践:对其功能的关键要求。
基本原理:为了满足对工作环境和工作场所中道德和不道德行为的关注,组织开始建立包含道德委员会(ECs)的道德计划。在许多不同的组织环境中,现在有一种传统和不同的伦理决策使用ec。此外,ECs还在许多书籍和科学文献中发表过文章。然而,到目前为止,还没有发表比较分析,将经济合作委员会在不同部门的做法结合起来。目的和目标:本文旨在弥合这一知识差距,并说明需要解决ec实践的哪些主要需求,以帮助ec实现其预期的功能。方法:为此,本文提出了一项基于探索性定性设计的研究,使用焦点小组和个人专家访谈来比较ec在医疗保健、银行和科学研究部门的做法(就研究的双重用途而言)。结果:基于这项研究的结果,我们能够区分两个主要类别:道德权威和可信度。我们还能够确定三个子类别:合法性、模式和外联。结论:基于本研究的探索性分析,我们认为ECs的功能有以下三个不同的主要要求:(1) EC成员与其他利益相关者之间的对话;(2)考虑各种可能模式(反应性、筛选性、调节性和预防性)以提高EC决策过程质量的方法;(3)与所有相关的EC利益相关者进行联系,以进一步验证EC功能的主要要求。
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
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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