研究人员申请土著人和托雷斯海峡岛民健康研究的人类研究伦理批准的报告过程和做法:一项混合方法研究。

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":"研究人员申请土著人和托雷斯海峡岛民健康研究的人类研究伦理批准的报告过程和做法:一项混合方法研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:研究土著和托雷斯海峡岛民健康和医学研究人员在获得伦理批准方面的自我报告做法,以及对伦理申请过程的反思。研究设计:横断面在线调查。环境和参与者:澳大利亚的研究人员进行了包括土著和托雷斯海峡岛民或他们的数据的研究。主要结果测量:参与者完成的74项在线调查的结果,其中包括人口统计学,道德流程,对土著和托雷斯海峡岛民研究参与的看法,以及进行土著和托雷斯海峡岛民研究的障碍和推动因素。结果:在开始调查的553名符合条件的研究人员中,439名(79.4%)回答了所有问题并被纳入分析。共有327名参与者(74.5%)获得了原住民人类研究伦理委员会(AHREC)的伦理批准,254名参与者(57.9%)获得了多州伦理批准,270名参与者(61.5%)没有参加专门针对原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民研究的伦理培训。如果参与者有6年以上的研究经验,参加过培训,获得了AHREC的伦理批准,或者将50%的时间用于原住民和托雷斯海峡岛民的研究,那么他们更有可能报告对管理伦理申请过程非常或非常有信心。与会者承认伦理审批过程对改进研究实践的重要性,但是他们认为时间和成本是障碍。土著和托雷斯海峡岛民与会者指出,伦理程序并不总是坚持土著的做法或方法。结论:土著和托雷斯海峡岛民健康和医学研究获得伦理批准的程序不符合当代研究需要,应通过简化伦理申请程序、减少时间和成本障碍以及增强文化适宜性来加强这些程序。我们呼吁在每个司法管辖区建立以州为基础的AHRECs,并建立一个全国土著和托雷斯海峡岛民人类研究伦理委员会,以审查跨司法管辖区的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reported processes and practices of researchers applying for human research ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a mixed methods study

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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