Beyond Research Ethics: Novel Approaches of 3 Major Public Health Institutions to Provide Ethics Input on Public Health Practice Activities.

Corinna Klingler, Drue H Barrett, Nancy Ondrusek, Brooke R Johnson, Abha Saxena, Andreas A Reis
{"title":"Beyond Research Ethics: Novel Approaches of 3 Major Public Health Institutions to Provide Ethics Input on Public Health Practice Activities.","authors":"Corinna Klingler, Drue H Barrett, Nancy Ondrusek, Brooke R Johnson, Abha Saxena, Andreas A Reis","doi":"10.1097/PHH.0000000000000734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public health institutions increasingly realize the importance of creating a culture in their organizations that values ethics. When developing strategies to strengthen ethics, institutions will have to take into account that while public health research projects typically undergo thorough ethics review, activities considered public health practice may not be subjected to similar oversight. This approach, based on a research-practice dichotomy, is increasingly being criticized as it does not adequately identify and manage ethically relevant risks to those affected by nonresearch activities. As a reaction, 3 major public health institutions (the World Health Organization, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health Ontario) have implemented mechanisms for ethics review of public health practice activities. In this article, we describe and critically discuss the different modalities of the 3 approaches. We argue that although further evaluation is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the different approaches, public health institutions should strive to implement procedures to ensure that public health practice adheres to the highest ethical standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":296123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP","volume":" ","pages":"E12-E22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6650371/pdf/nihms-1020441.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public health institutions increasingly realize the importance of creating a culture in their organizations that values ethics. When developing strategies to strengthen ethics, institutions will have to take into account that while public health research projects typically undergo thorough ethics review, activities considered public health practice may not be subjected to similar oversight. This approach, based on a research-practice dichotomy, is increasingly being criticized as it does not adequately identify and manage ethically relevant risks to those affected by nonresearch activities. As a reaction, 3 major public health institutions (the World Health Organization, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health Ontario) have implemented mechanisms for ethics review of public health practice activities. In this article, we describe and critically discuss the different modalities of the 3 approaches. We argue that although further evaluation is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the different approaches, public health institutions should strive to implement procedures to ensure that public health practice adheres to the highest ethical standards.

超越研究伦理:三大公共卫生机构为公共卫生实践活动提供伦理输入的新方法。
公共卫生机构日益认识到在其组织中创造一种重视道德的文化的重要性。在制定加强伦理的战略时,各机构必须考虑到,虽然公共卫生研究项目通常会经过彻底的伦理审查,但被视为公共卫生实践的活动可能不会受到类似的监督。这种基于研究-实践二分法的方法正日益受到批评,因为它没有充分识别和管理那些受非研究活动影响的人的伦理相关风险。作为反应,3个主要公共卫生机构(世界卫生组织、美国疾病控制和预防中心以及安大略省公共卫生部)实施了对公共卫生实践活动进行伦理审查的机制。在本文中,我们描述并批判性地讨论了这三种方法的不同模式。我们认为,虽然需要进一步评估以确定不同方法的有效性,但公共卫生机构应努力实施程序,以确保公共卫生实践符合最高的道德标准。
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