HAASER, Thibaud; BOUTELOUP, Vincent; BERDAI, Driss; SAUX, Marie-Claude

doi:10.1177/15562646221093218

Métadonnées

Afficher la notice complète

Licence d’utilisation du document

HAASER, Thibaud

BOUTELOUP, Vincent
Bordeaux population health [BPH]

BERDAI, Driss

Langue

Article de revue

Ce document a été publié dans

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2022-07, vol. 17, n° 3, p. 242-253

Résumé en anglais

Debate is ongoing concerning the activities and functioning of Research Ethics Committees (REC), especially a possible science-or-ethics dichotomy in research ethics review. We retrospectively analyzed 145 letters issued by a French REC over 18 months. All queries were classified in three levels: qualification (definition of the problem), category (aggregation of broader topics) and finally fields (ethical, scientific, or administrative). Overall, 971 queries were identified, of which 407 (42%), 379 (39%), and 135 (14%) were deemed ethical, scientific, and administrative queries, respectively. The most frequent concern was about participants' information. The main influencing factor was the profession of the reporting readers-scientific queries were more frequently raised by a methodologist, whereas ethical queries were more frequently raised by an ethicist. These results indicate that research ethics review is a multidimensional task that should be considered a collaborative effort.< Réduire

Mots clés en anglais

Research ethics

Research ethics committee

IRB performance/quality/assessment/evaluation

Bioethics

Ethics education

Métadonnées

Partager cette publication !

Licence d’utilisation du document

The Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries

Langue

Ce document a été publié dans

Résumé en anglais

Mots clés en anglais

URI

DOI

Unités de recherche