Reported processes and practices of researchers applying for human research ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a mixed methods study

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jamie Bryant, Kade Booth, Felicity Collis, Catherine Chamberlain, Jaquelyne Hughes, Breanne Hobden, Kalinda E Griffiths, Mark Wenitong, Peter O'Mara, Alex Brown, Sandra J Eades, Kelvin M Kong, Raymond W Lovett, Michelle Kennedy
{"title":"Reported processes and practices of researchers applying for human research ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a mixed methods study","authors":"Jamie Bryant,&nbsp;Kade Booth,&nbsp;Felicity Collis,&nbsp;Catherine Chamberlain,&nbsp;Jaquelyne Hughes,&nbsp;Breanne Hobden,&nbsp;Kalinda E Griffiths,&nbsp;Mark Wenitong,&nbsp;Peter O'Mara,&nbsp;Alex Brown,&nbsp;Sandra J Eades,&nbsp;Kelvin M Kong,&nbsp;Raymond W Lovett,&nbsp;Michelle Kennedy","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To examine self-reported practices for obtaining ethics approval and reflections on ethics application processes among researchers who have conducted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study design</h3>\n \n <p>Cross-sectional online survey.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting and participants</h3>\n \n <p>Australian-based researchers who conducted research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Results from a 74-item online survey that participants completed, which included questions on demographics, ethics processes, perceptions of engagement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research, and barriers to and enablers of conducting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 553 eligible researchers who commenced the survey, 439 (79.4%) answered all of the questions and were included in the analysis. A total of 327 participants (74.5%) had obtained ethics approval from an Aboriginal human research ethics committee (AHREC), 254 (57.9%) had obtained multistate ethics approvals and 270 (61.5%) had not participated in ethics training specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants were significantly more likely to report being very or extremely confident in managing the ethics application process if they had ≥ 6 years of research experience, had participated in training, had obtained ethics approval from an AHREC, or dedicated &gt; 50% of their time to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants acknowledged the importance of ethics approval processes in improving research practices, however they identified time and costs as barriers. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants identified that ethics processes do not always uphold Indigenous approaches or methodologies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Processes for obtaining ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research do not meet contemporary research needs and would be strengthened by streamlining ethics application processes, reducing time and cost barriers, and enhancing cultural appropriateness. We join calls for the establishment of state-based AHRECs in every jurisdiction, and a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human research ethics committee to review cross-jurisdictional research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 S2","pages":"S25-S33"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52565","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52565","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To examine self-reported practices for obtaining ethics approval and reflections on ethics application processes among researchers who have conducted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.

Study design

Cross-sectional online survey.

Setting and participants

Australian-based researchers who conducted research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.

Main outcome measures

Results from a 74-item online survey that participants completed, which included questions on demographics, ethics processes, perceptions of engagement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research, and barriers to and enablers of conducting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research.

Results

Of 553 eligible researchers who commenced the survey, 439 (79.4%) answered all of the questions and were included in the analysis. A total of 327 participants (74.5%) had obtained ethics approval from an Aboriginal human research ethics committee (AHREC), 254 (57.9%) had obtained multistate ethics approvals and 270 (61.5%) had not participated in ethics training specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants were significantly more likely to report being very or extremely confident in managing the ethics application process if they had ≥ 6 years of research experience, had participated in training, had obtained ethics approval from an AHREC, or dedicated > 50% of their time to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Participants acknowledged the importance of ethics approval processes in improving research practices, however they identified time and costs as barriers. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants identified that ethics processes do not always uphold Indigenous approaches or methodologies.

Conclusions

Processes for obtaining ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research do not meet contemporary research needs and would be strengthened by streamlining ethics application processes, reducing time and cost barriers, and enhancing cultural appropriateness. We join calls for the establishment of state-based AHRECs in every jurisdiction, and a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander human research ethics committee to review cross-jurisdictional research.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
×
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