Research Ethics Monthly
ISSN 2206-2483
Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?
April 28, 2021
No Comments
In this great post, Mark, Deborah and Ciara discuss a useful new element for the National Statement that relates to genuine involvement, input and participation for consumers/community members.
Mark Israel, Deborah Hersh and Ciara Shiggins
Advocates in health research of Consumer and Community Involvement – a concept better known in the United Kingdom as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) – argue that it offers a way of building knowledge that incorporates the experiences and perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including patients and members of the public. Such involvement can improve the experience for research participants, enhance the process of informed consent, aid research impact and dissemination. It might also avoid the waste of resources on findings that have little relevance to end users or that cannot be implemented…
Justice in Human Research Ethics: A Conceptual and Practical Guide
September 24, 2018
No Comments
Pieper, I. & Thomson, C.J.H. Justice in Human Research Ethics: A Conceptual and Practical Guide, Monash Bioethics Review I Volume
Categories
Featured posts
Research Ethics in Australia: A Story
July 30, 2018
No Comments
Have you ever needed to find a history of human research ethics, whether for
It’s not too late to register for today’s free webinar about the 2018 update to the National Statement
November 21, 2018
No Comments
Details about the event below. While we hope to see you there in a
What do HREC members think and do when deciding about children’s participation in social research? Results from the MESSI survey
November 30, 2021
No Comments
In this guest post, Associate Professor Stephanie Taplin (UTS) reflects upon the reflections and attitudes of members of a research ethics committee when reviewing a project involving sensitive issues, where the participants are young people.
She reflects upon the degree that this consideration is based upon standards and expectations that are often not transparent to researchers and can be an impediment to useful/important research.
This post is based upon a longer research output that was about research exploring those attitudes.
This included whether there were topics that a research ethics committee member would never approve for a research project to explore with young people.
This work points to the need for specialist professional development for committee members relating to research on sensitive issues with young people.
This also raises the question of what guidance material institutions publish for researchers and for reference by research ethics reviewers.
Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?
June 19, 2020
No Comments
All of us might be part of the problem. Dr Gary Allen AHRECS Senior