Can we do better? Researchers' experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus
Article
Article Title | Can we do better? Researchers' experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus |
---|---|
ERA Journal ID | 16300 |
Article Category | Article |
Authors | Pachana, Nancy A. (Author), Liddle, Jacki (Author), Peel, Nancye M. (Author), Beattie, Elizabeth (Author), Juang, Christine (Author) and Knight, Bob G. (Author) |
Journal Title | Journal of Alzheimer's Disease |
Journal Citation | 43 (3), pp. 701-707 |
Number of Pages | 7 |
Year | 2015 |
Place of Publication | Amsterdam, Netherlands |
ISSN | 1387-2877 |
1875-8908 | |
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-141956 |
Web Address (URL) | http://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad141956 |
Abstract | The goal of this study was to describe researchers' experiences in submitting ethical proposals focused on older adult populations, including studies with persons with dementia, to ethical review boards. Ethical approval was granted for an online survey. Researchers were recruited via listservs and snowballing techniques. Participants included 157 persons (73% female) from Australia and the United States, with a mean age of 46 (±13). Six main issues were encountered by researchers who participated in this survey. In descending order, these included questions regarding: informed consent and information requirements (61.1%), participants' vulnerability, particularly for those with cognitive impairments (58.6%), participant burden (44.6%), data access (29.3%), adverse effects of data collection/intervention (26.8%), and study methodology (25.5%). An inductive content analysis of responses revealed a range of encounters with ethical review panels spanning positive, negative, and neutral experiences. Concerns voiced about ethical review boards included committees being overly focused on legal risk, as well as not always hearing the voice of older research participants, both potential and actual. Respondents noted inability to move forward on studies, as well as loss of researchers and participant groups from gerontological and clinical research as a result of negative interactions with ethics committees. Positive interactions with the committees reinforced researchers' need to carefully construct their research approaches with persons with dementia in particular. Suggested guidelines for committees when dealing with ethics applications involving older adults include self-reflecting on potential biases and stereotypes, and seeking further clarification and information from gerontological researchers before arriving at decisions. |
Keywords | aging, ethics committees, frail older adults, healthcare research, research ethics |
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020 | 320210. Geriatrics and gerontology |
Public Notes | Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions. |
Byline Affiliations | University of Queensland |
Queensland University of Technology | |
University of Southern California, United States | |
Institution of Origin | University of Southern Queensland |
https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q332y/can-we-do-better-researchers-experiences-with-ethical-review-boards-on-projects-with-later-life-as-a-focus
1639
total views9
total downloads1
views this month0
downloads this month