Do chiropractic college faculty understand informed consent: a pilot study.

Dana J Lawrence, Maria A Hondras
{"title":"Do chiropractic college faculty understand informed consent: a pilot study.","authors":"Dana J Lawrence,&nbsp;Maria A Hondras","doi":"10.1186/1746-1340-14-27","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to survey full-time faculty at a single chiropractic college concerning their knowledge of Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies in their institution as they pertain to educational research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All full-time faculty were invited to participate in an anonymous survey. Four scenarios involving educational research were described and respondents were asked to select from three possible courses of action for each. In addition, respondents were queried about their knowledge of IRB policies, how they learned of these policies and about their years of service and departmental assignments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 55%. In no scenario did the level of correct answers by all respondents score higher than 41% and in most, the scores were closer to just under 1 in 3. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated they were unsure whether Palmer had any policies in place at all, while 4% felt that no such policies were in place. Just over one-quarter (27%) were correct in noting that students can decline consent, while more than half (54%) did not know whether there were any procedures governing student consent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Palmer faculty have only modest understanding about institutional policies regarding the IRB and human subject research, especially pertaining to educational research. The institution needs to develop methods to provide knowledge and training to faculty. The results from this pilot study will be instrumental in developing better protocols for a study designed to survey the entire chiropractic academic community.</p>","PeriodicalId":87173,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","volume":"14 ","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1746-1340-14-27","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-14-27","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to survey full-time faculty at a single chiropractic college concerning their knowledge of Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies in their institution as they pertain to educational research.

Methods: All full-time faculty were invited to participate in an anonymous survey. Four scenarios involving educational research were described and respondents were asked to select from three possible courses of action for each. In addition, respondents were queried about their knowledge of IRB policies, how they learned of these policies and about their years of service and departmental assignments.

Results: The response rate was 55%. In no scenario did the level of correct answers by all respondents score higher than 41% and in most, the scores were closer to just under 1 in 3. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated they were unsure whether Palmer had any policies in place at all, while 4% felt that no such policies were in place. Just over one-quarter (27%) were correct in noting that students can decline consent, while more than half (54%) did not know whether there were any procedures governing student consent.

Conclusion: Palmer faculty have only modest understanding about institutional policies regarding the IRB and human subject research, especially pertaining to educational research. The institution needs to develop methods to provide knowledge and training to faculty. The results from this pilot study will be instrumental in developing better protocols for a study designed to survey the entire chiropractic academic community.

脊椎按摩学院的教师是否理解知情同意:一项试点研究。
背景:本研究的目的是调查一所脊椎指压专科学院的全职教师对机构审查委员会(IRB)政策的了解情况,因为他们与教育研究有关。方法:邀请所有专任教师参加匿名调查。涉及教育研究的四个场景被描述,受访者被要求从三个可能的行动方案中进行选择。此外,受访者还被问及他们对内部审查委员会政策的了解程度,他们是如何了解这些政策的,以及他们的服务年限和部门任务。结果:有效率为55%。在任何情况下,所有受访者的正确答案水平得分都不高于41%,在大多数情况下,得分接近1 / 3。65%的受访者表示,他们不确定帕尔默是否有任何政策,而4%的人认为没有这样的政策。超过四分之一(27%)的人指出学生可以拒绝同意,而超过一半(54%)的人不知道是否有任何管理学生同意的程序。结论:帕尔默教师对IRB和人类受试者研究的制度政策,特别是与教育研究有关的政策,了解有限。该机构需要开发向教员提供知识和培训的方法。这项初步研究的结果将有助于为一项旨在调查整个脊椎指压疗法学术界的研究制定更好的协议。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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