Deception and informed consent in studies with incognito simulated standardized patients: empirical experiences and a case study from South Africa

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
B. Daniels, J. Boffa, A. Kwan, S. Moyo
{"title":"Deception and informed consent in studies with incognito simulated standardized patients: empirical experiences and a case study from South Africa","authors":"B. Daniels, J. Boffa, A. Kwan, S. Moyo","doi":"10.1177/17470161231174734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Simulated standardized patients (SPs) are trained individuals who pose incognito as people seeking treatment in a health care setting. With the method’s increasing use and popularity, we propose some standards to adapt the method to contextual considerations of feasibility, and we discuss current issues with the SP method and the experience of consent and ethical research in international SP studies. Since a foundational discussion of the research ethics of the method was published in 2012, a growing number of studies have implemented this method to collect data on the quality of care in a variety of settings around the world. We draw from that experience to provide empirical foundations for a popular approach to ethical approval of such studies in the United States and Canada, which has been to obtain a waiver of informed consent from the health care providers who are the subjects of the research. However, the majority of studies to date have evaluated quality of care outside the U.S., requiring additional ethical consideration when partnering with international institutions. We discuss these considerations in the context of a case study from a completed SP study in South Africa, where informed consent is constitutionally protected.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"177 1","pages":"341 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231174734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Simulated standardized patients (SPs) are trained individuals who pose incognito as people seeking treatment in a health care setting. With the method’s increasing use and popularity, we propose some standards to adapt the method to contextual considerations of feasibility, and we discuss current issues with the SP method and the experience of consent and ethical research in international SP studies. Since a foundational discussion of the research ethics of the method was published in 2012, a growing number of studies have implemented this method to collect data on the quality of care in a variety of settings around the world. We draw from that experience to provide empirical foundations for a popular approach to ethical approval of such studies in the United States and Canada, which has been to obtain a waiver of informed consent from the health care providers who are the subjects of the research. However, the majority of studies to date have evaluated quality of care outside the U.S., requiring additional ethical consideration when partnering with international institutions. We discuss these considerations in the context of a case study from a completed SP study in South Africa, where informed consent is constitutionally protected.
在模拟匿名标准化患者的研究中的欺骗和知情同意:经验经验和来自南非的案例研究
模拟标准化患者(SPs)是经过培训的个人,他们伪装成在卫生保健机构寻求治疗的人。随着该方法的使用和普及,我们提出了一些标准,以使该方法适应可行性的背景考虑,并讨论了SP方法的当前问题以及国际SP研究中同意和伦理研究的经验。自2012年发表了关于该方法研究伦理的基础讨论以来,越来越多的研究采用该方法在世界各地的各种环境中收集有关护理质量的数据。我们从这一经验中吸取经验,为美国和加拿大对此类研究的伦理批准的流行方法提供经验基础,该方法是获得作为研究对象的卫生保健提供者的知情同意豁免。然而,到目前为止,大多数研究都评估了美国以外的护理质量,在与国际机构合作时需要额外的伦理考虑。我们在南非完成的一项SP研究的案例研究中讨论了这些考虑因素,在南非,知情同意受到宪法保护。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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