我的项目是研究吗?决定哪些项目需要由研究伦理委员会审查。

IF 4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin
{"title":"我的项目是研究吗?决定哪些项目需要由研究伦理委员会审查。","authors":"Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deciding which types of activities require an ethics review is a critical component of research regulation. Reviews conducted by research ethics committees consider the rights and safety of potential research participants, and occur as part of a wider set of governance reviews. However, to save time and resources, projects that do not raise ethical issues, or have ethical issues dealt with through other processes, are defined as out of scope for research ethics review by often being labelled as quality improvement, clinical service evaluation, audit or similar.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Here we argue that the problem of identifying projects that need to be reviewed by a research ethics committee is distinct from attempts to define research more generally, and the two contexts must not be confused.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We describe a pragmatic, heuristic, solution developed by the authors working with three UK government agencies, with the goal of clarifying which projects/studies require a research ethics review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Alongside applying to UK research, our approach will be of interest to international regulators and researchers when considering the wider implications as to where ethics accountability sits for different types of research-related activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"741-761"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee.\",\"authors\":\"Simon E Kolstoe, Erman Sözüdoğru, Janet Messer, Elizabeth Coates, Emma Tobin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deciding which types of activities require an ethics review is a critical component of research regulation. Reviews conducted by research ethics committees consider the rights and safety of potential research participants, and occur as part of a wider set of governance reviews. However, to save time and resources, projects that do not raise ethical issues, or have ethical issues dealt with through other processes, are defined as out of scope for research ethics review by often being labelled as quality improvement, clinical service evaluation, audit or similar.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Here we argue that the problem of identifying projects that need to be reviewed by a research ethics committee is distinct from attempts to define research more generally, and the two contexts must not be confused.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We describe a pragmatic, heuristic, solution developed by the authors working with three UK government agencies, with the goal of clarifying which projects/studies require a research ethics review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Alongside applying to UK research, our approach will be of interest to international regulators and researchers when considering the wider implications as to where ethics accountability sits for different types of research-related activities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"741-761\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2460521","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:决定哪些类型的活动需要伦理审查是研究监管的关键组成部分。研究伦理委员会进行的审查考虑了潜在研究参与者的权利和安全,并作为更广泛的治理审查的一部分进行。然而,为了节省时间和资源,没有引起伦理问题的项目,或通过其他程序处理伦理问题的项目,通常被定义为质量改进、临床服务评估、审计或类似的项目,不属于研究伦理审查的范围。方法论:在这里,我们认为确定需要由研究伦理委员会审查的项目的问题与试图更普遍地定义研究的问题是不同的,这两种背景不能混淆。结果:我们描述了一个实用的、启发式的解决方案,由作者与三个英国政府机构合作开发,目的是澄清哪些项目/研究需要研究伦理审查。结论:除了适用于英国的研究外,我们的方法将引起国际监管机构和研究人员的兴趣,因为考虑到道德责任对不同类型的研究相关活动的更广泛影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is my project research? Determining which projects require review by a research ethics committee.

Background: Deciding which types of activities require an ethics review is a critical component of research regulation. Reviews conducted by research ethics committees consider the rights and safety of potential research participants, and occur as part of a wider set of governance reviews. However, to save time and resources, projects that do not raise ethical issues, or have ethical issues dealt with through other processes, are defined as out of scope for research ethics review by often being labelled as quality improvement, clinical service evaluation, audit or similar.

Methodology: Here we argue that the problem of identifying projects that need to be reviewed by a research ethics committee is distinct from attempts to define research more generally, and the two contexts must not be confused.

Results: We describe a pragmatic, heuristic, solution developed by the authors working with three UK government agencies, with the goal of clarifying which projects/studies require a research ethics review.

Conclusion: Alongside applying to UK research, our approach will be of interest to international regulators and researchers when considering the wider implications as to where ethics accountability sits for different types of research-related activities.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信