特邀评论“反对卫生研究中的新殖民主义:土著卫生研究伦理与全球卫生研究伦理可以相互教导什么?”

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Michelle R Brear
{"title":"特邀评论“反对卫生研究中的新殖民主义:土著卫生研究伦理与全球卫生研究伦理可以相互教导什么?”","authors":"Michelle R Brear","doi":"10.1177/15562646221097226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bridget Pratt and Adrian Harper ( 2021) conducted a comparison of articles identified through six electronic literature searches. Their aim was to \"identify ethics literature… that discussed combatting neo-colonial models of research\". They used manifest content analysis to compare the conceptual content of articles from the fields of global health (GH) and Australian Aboriginal health (AH). This innovative application of a literature review approach from literary and media studies, to health sciences in which literature reviews have traditionally focused on synthesizing evidence about intervention effectiveness, should be commended. It has potential to advance theoretical understandings of ethics in health research. However, I argue here that Pratt and Harper's (2021) search strategy has several weaknesses, which suggests that their results must be interpreted with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Invited Commentary on \\\"Combatting neo-Colonialism in Health Research: What can Aboriginal Health Research Ethics and Global Health Research Ethics Teach Each Other?\\\"\",\"authors\":\"Michelle R Brear\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15562646221097226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Bridget Pratt and Adrian Harper ( 2021) conducted a comparison of articles identified through six electronic literature searches. Their aim was to \\\"identify ethics literature… that discussed combatting neo-colonial models of research\\\". They used manifest content analysis to compare the conceptual content of articles from the fields of global health (GH) and Australian Aboriginal health (AH). This innovative application of a literature review approach from literary and media studies, to health sciences in which literature reviews have traditionally focused on synthesizing evidence about intervention effectiveness, should be commended. It has potential to advance theoretical understandings of ethics in health research. However, I argue here that Pratt and Harper's (2021) search strategy has several weaknesses, which suggests that their results must be interpreted with caution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221097226\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221097226","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Bridget Pratt和Adrian Harper(2021)对通过六次电子文献搜索确定的文章进行了比较。他们的目的是“找出讨论对抗新殖民主义研究模式的伦理学文献”。他们使用清单内容分析来比较全球健康(GH)和澳大利亚土著健康(AH)领域文章的概念内容。这种从文学和媒体研究到健康科学的文献综述方法的创新应用应该受到赞扬,在健康科学中,文献综述传统上侧重于综合有关干预有效性的证据。它有可能促进对卫生研究中伦理学的理论理解。然而,我认为普拉特和哈珀(2021)的搜索策略有几个弱点,这表明他们的结果必须谨慎解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Invited Commentary on "Combatting neo-Colonialism in Health Research: What can Aboriginal Health Research Ethics and Global Health Research Ethics Teach Each Other?"

Bridget Pratt and Adrian Harper ( 2021) conducted a comparison of articles identified through six electronic literature searches. Their aim was to "identify ethics literature… that discussed combatting neo-colonial models of research". They used manifest content analysis to compare the conceptual content of articles from the fields of global health (GH) and Australian Aboriginal health (AH). This innovative application of a literature review approach from literary and media studies, to health sciences in which literature reviews have traditionally focused on synthesizing evidence about intervention effectiveness, should be commended. It has potential to advance theoretical understandings of ethics in health research. However, I argue here that Pratt and Harper's (2021) search strategy has several weaknesses, which suggests that their results must be interpreted with caution.

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
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
×
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