欺骗性研究的REC综述:针对不同综述需求的多样化指导。

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Kamiel Verbeke, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry
{"title":"欺骗性研究的REC综述:针对不同综述需求的多样化指导。","authors":"Kamiel Verbeke, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry","doi":"10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Deceiving participants is an ethically complicated research practice which remains an important challenge for research ethics committees (RECs) and researchers, despite the availability of abundant research ethics guidance. Exploring this persistent policy-practice divide, we develop a framework for assessing the needs of the REC review of deceptive studies in a context-sensitive way. Different guidance formats are evaluated in light of their potential contribution to the frequently recurring REC review need for consistent and representative rules that set a perimeter for precise, coherent and representative discretionary review to take place. Research ethics guidelines and a new format of \"descriptive living documents\" are argued to respectively provide perimeter-setting rules and support discretionary decision-making about the justifiability of deceptive studies. REC review coordination is argued to benefit from analogous guidance formats to ensure conditions that facilitate successful REC review. As the needs of REC review may differ depending on the context, different mixes of these and possibly other guidance formats may support the REC review of deceptive studies and offer a way out of the policy-practice divide.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REC review of deceptive studies: diversifying guidance for diverse review needs.\",\"authors\":\"Kamiel Verbeke, Dieter Baeyens, Tomasz Krawczyk, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Deceiving participants is an ethically complicated research practice which remains an important challenge for research ethics committees (RECs) and researchers, despite the availability of abundant research ethics guidance. Exploring this persistent policy-practice divide, we develop a framework for assessing the needs of the REC review of deceptive studies in a context-sensitive way. Different guidance formats are evaluated in light of their potential contribution to the frequently recurring REC review need for consistent and representative rules that set a perimeter for precise, coherent and representative discretionary review to take place. Research ethics guidelines and a new format of \\\"descriptive living documents\\\" are argued to respectively provide perimeter-setting rules and support discretionary decision-making about the justifiability of deceptive studies. REC review coordination is argued to benefit from analogous guidance formats to ensure conditions that facilitate successful REC review. As the needs of REC review may differ depending on the context, different mixes of these and possibly other guidance formats may support the REC review of deceptive studies and offer a way out of the policy-practice divide.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47449,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10280-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欺骗参与者是一个伦理复杂的研究实践,尽管有大量的研究伦理指导,但它仍然是研究伦理委员会和研究人员面临的重要挑战。为了探索这种持续存在的政策-实践鸿沟,我们开发了一个框架,以上下文敏感的方式评估REC对欺骗性研究的审查需求。不同的指导格式根据其对经常出现的REC审查需求的潜在贡献进行评估,这些审查需要一致和具有代表性的规则,这些规则为进行精确、连贯和具有代表性的自由裁量审查设定了界限。研究伦理准则和一种新的“描述性活文件”格式分别提供了边界设定规则和支持对欺骗性研究的正当性的自由裁量决策。REC审查协调被认为受益于类似的指导格式,以确保有利于REC审查成功的条件。由于REC审查的需要可能因背景而异,这些和可能的其他指导格式的不同混合可能支持对欺骗性研究的REC审查,并提供一条摆脱政策-实践鸿沟的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
REC review of deceptive studies: diversifying guidance for diverse review needs.

Deceiving participants is an ethically complicated research practice which remains an important challenge for research ethics committees (RECs) and researchers, despite the availability of abundant research ethics guidance. Exploring this persistent policy-practice divide, we develop a framework for assessing the needs of the REC review of deceptive studies in a context-sensitive way. Different guidance formats are evaluated in light of their potential contribution to the frequently recurring REC review need for consistent and representative rules that set a perimeter for precise, coherent and representative discretionary review to take place. Research ethics guidelines and a new format of "descriptive living documents" are argued to respectively provide perimeter-setting rules and support discretionary decision-making about the justifiability of deceptive studies. REC review coordination is argued to benefit from analogous guidance formats to ensure conditions that facilitate successful REC review. As the needs of REC review may differ depending on the context, different mixes of these and possibly other guidance formats may support the REC review of deceptive studies and offer a way out of the policy-practice divide.

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
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
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