Researchers’ self-reported adherence to ethical principles in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research and views on improving conduct: a mixed methods study

IF 6.7 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kade Booth, Jamie Bryant, 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":"Researchers’ self-reported adherence to ethical principles in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research and views on improving conduct: a mixed methods study","authors":"Kade Booth,&nbsp;Jamie Bryant,&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/mja2.52570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To examine researchers’ reports of adherence to ethical principles in their most recent research project, including factors associated with higher self-reported adherence, and perceptions of how research conduct could be improved.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study design</h3>\n \n <p>Online cross-sectional survey.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\n \n <p>Researchers who had conducted any health or medical 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>Researchers rated their adherence to 15 ethical principles extracted from ethical guidelines in their most recent research project on a 5-point Likert scale (poor to excellent), and reported what they believe is needed to improve the conduct of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>391 researchers completed the survey. Those with &gt; 10 years’ experience in the field were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to all 15 key ethical principles compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience. Compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience, those with 6–10 years’ experience were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to: engaging community in identifying research priorities (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23–3.40]); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.32–3.55); and engaging community in research implementation (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.25–3.54). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to the following principles than non-Indigenous participants: engaging community in identifying research priorities (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.16–3.10); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30–3.61); engaging community in research implementation (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.14–3.20); embedding Aboriginal governance, advisory and decision making on the project (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.26–3.50); embedding opportunities in the research for capacity building for communities (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.04–2.77); and enacting Indigenous data sovereignty and governance principles (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02–2.70). Open-ended responses indicated research conduct could be improved by recognition of community as experts, genuine partnerships and engagement, and pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and support to strengthen the field.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Structural and individual change is required to accommodate community priority setting, governance, consultation, leadership and translation in the conduct of ethical Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research. Such changes should be flexible and responsive to calls made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and communities.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 S2","pages":"S16-S24"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52570","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52570","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 researchers’ reports of adherence to ethical principles in their most recent research project, including factors associated with higher self-reported adherence, and perceptions of how research conduct could be improved.

Study design

Online cross-sectional survey.

Setting, participants

Researchers who had conducted any health or medical research that included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or their data.

Main outcome measures

Researchers rated their adherence to 15 ethical principles extracted from ethical guidelines in their most recent research project on a 5-point Likert scale (poor to excellent), and reported what they believe is needed to improve the conduct of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research.

Results

391 researchers completed the survey. Those with > 10 years’ experience in the field were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to all 15 key ethical principles compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience. Compared with those with ≤ 5 years’ experience, those with 6–10 years’ experience were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to: engaging community in identifying research priorities (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23–3.40]); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.32–3.55); and engaging community in research implementation (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.25–3.54). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants were significantly more likely to self-report adhering to the following principles than non-Indigenous participants: engaging community in identifying research priorities (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.16–3.10); engaging community in developing the research questions (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30–3.61); engaging community in research implementation (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.14–3.20); embedding Aboriginal governance, advisory and decision making on the project (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.26–3.50); embedding opportunities in the research for capacity building for communities (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.04–2.77); and enacting Indigenous data sovereignty and governance principles (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.02–2.70). Open-ended responses indicated research conduct could be improved by recognition of community as experts, genuine partnerships and engagement, and pathways for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and support to strengthen the field.

Conclusion

Structural and individual change is required to accommodate community priority setting, governance, consultation, leadership and translation in the conduct of ethical Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research. Such changes should be flexible and responsive to calls made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers and communities.

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