评估精神病学期刊对病例报告知情同意指南的遵守情况。

IF 10.7 Q1 ETHICS
Ashley J Tsang, John Z Sadler, E Sherwood Brown, Elizabeth Heitman
{"title":"评估精神病学期刊对病例报告知情同意指南的遵守情况。","authors":"Ashley J Tsang, John Z Sadler, E Sherwood Brown, Elizabeth Heitman","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00171-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Case reports are valuable tools that illustrate and analyze practical scenarios, novel problems, and the effectiveness of interventions. In psychiatry they often explore unique and potentially stigmatizing aspects of mental health, underscoring the importance of confidentiality and informed consent. However, journals' guidance on consent and confidentiality for case reports varies. In 2013, an international expert group developed the CAse REports (CARE) Guidelines for best practices in case reports, which include guidelines for informed consent and de-identification. In 2016, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) issued ethical standards for publishing case reports, calling for written informed consent from featured patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a cross-sectional approach, we assessed the instructions for authors of 253 indexed psychiatry journals, of which 129 had published English-language case reports in the prior five years. Our research identified and evaluated journals' use of COPE and CARE guidelines on informed consent and de-identification in case reports.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among these 129 journals, 84 (65%) referred to COPE guidelines, and 59 (46%) referenced CARE guidelines. Furthermore, 46 (36%) required informed consent without de-identification, 7 (5%) required only de-identification, and 21 (16%) required both, specifying consent for identifying information. Notably, 40 (31%) lacked informed consent instructions. Of the 82 journals that required informed consent, 69 (85%) required documentation of consent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A decade after the publication of expert guidance, psychiatry journals remain inconsistent in their adherence to ethical guidelines for informed consent in case reports. More attention to clear instructions from journals on informed consent-a notable topic across different fields-would provide an important educational message about both publication ethics and fundamental respect for patients' confidentiality.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"10 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12273215/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports.\",\"authors\":\"Ashley J Tsang, John Z Sadler, E Sherwood Brown, Elizabeth Heitman\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41073-025-00171-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Case reports are valuable tools that illustrate and analyze practical scenarios, novel problems, and the effectiveness of interventions. In psychiatry they often explore unique and potentially stigmatizing aspects of mental health, underscoring the importance of confidentiality and informed consent. However, journals' guidance on consent and confidentiality for case reports varies. In 2013, an international expert group developed the CAse REports (CARE) Guidelines for best practices in case reports, which include guidelines for informed consent and de-identification. In 2016, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) issued ethical standards for publishing case reports, calling for written informed consent from featured patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a cross-sectional approach, we assessed the instructions for authors of 253 indexed psychiatry journals, of which 129 had published English-language case reports in the prior five years. Our research identified and evaluated journals' use of COPE and CARE guidelines on informed consent and de-identification in case reports.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among these 129 journals, 84 (65%) referred to COPE guidelines, and 59 (46%) referenced CARE guidelines. Furthermore, 46 (36%) required informed consent without de-identification, 7 (5%) required only de-identification, and 21 (16%) required both, specifying consent for identifying information. Notably, 40 (31%) lacked informed consent instructions. Of the 82 journals that required informed consent, 69 (85%) required documentation of consent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A decade after the publication of expert guidance, psychiatry journals remain inconsistent in their adherence to ethical guidelines for informed consent in case reports. More attention to clear instructions from journals on informed consent-a notable topic across different fields-would provide an important educational message about both publication ethics and fundamental respect for patients' confidentiality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12273215/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research integrity and peer review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00171-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00171-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:病例报告是说明和分析实际情况、新问题和干预措施有效性的宝贵工具。在精神病学中,他们经常探讨精神健康的独特和潜在的污名化方面,强调保密和知情同意的重要性。然而,期刊对病例报告的同意和保密的指导各不相同。2013年,一个国际专家组制定了《病例报告(CARE)最佳做法指南》,其中包括知情同意和去识别准则。2016年,出版伦理委员会(COPE)发布了出版病例报告的伦理标准,要求获得特写患者的书面知情同意。方法:采用横断面方法,我们评估了253份被索引的精神病学期刊的作者指南,其中129份在过去五年内发表过英文病例报告。我们的研究确定并评估了期刊对病例报告中知情同意和去识别的COPE和CARE指南的使用。结果:129种期刊中,84种(65%)参考了COPE指南,59种(46%)参考了CARE指南。此外,46个(36%)要求在没有去识别的情况下获得知情同意,7个(5%)只要求去识别,21个(16%)两者都要求,明确了识别信息的同意。值得注意的是,40个(31%)缺乏知情同意说明。在要求知情同意的82种期刊中,69种(85%)要求知情同意文件。结论:在专家指南发表十年后,精神病学期刊在病例报告中知情同意的道德准则方面仍然不一致。更多地关注期刊关于知情同意的明确说明——这是一个在不同领域都值得关注的话题——将提供关于出版伦理和对患者保密的基本尊重的重要教育信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports.

Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports.

Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports.

Background: Case reports are valuable tools that illustrate and analyze practical scenarios, novel problems, and the effectiveness of interventions. In psychiatry they often explore unique and potentially stigmatizing aspects of mental health, underscoring the importance of confidentiality and informed consent. However, journals' guidance on consent and confidentiality for case reports varies. In 2013, an international expert group developed the CAse REports (CARE) Guidelines for best practices in case reports, which include guidelines for informed consent and de-identification. In 2016, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) issued ethical standards for publishing case reports, calling for written informed consent from featured patients.

Methods: Using a cross-sectional approach, we assessed the instructions for authors of 253 indexed psychiatry journals, of which 129 had published English-language case reports in the prior five years. Our research identified and evaluated journals' use of COPE and CARE guidelines on informed consent and de-identification in case reports.

Results: Among these 129 journals, 84 (65%) referred to COPE guidelines, and 59 (46%) referenced CARE guidelines. Furthermore, 46 (36%) required informed consent without de-identification, 7 (5%) required only de-identification, and 21 (16%) required both, specifying consent for identifying information. Notably, 40 (31%) lacked informed consent instructions. Of the 82 journals that required informed consent, 69 (85%) required documentation of consent.

Conclusion: A decade after the publication of expert guidance, psychiatry journals remain inconsistent in their adherence to ethical guidelines for informed consent in case reports. More attention to clear instructions from journals on informed consent-a notable topic across different fields-would provide an important educational message about both publication ethics and fundamental respect for patients' confidentiality.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信