Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.rights.licenseopenen_US
dc.contributor.authorHAASER, Thibaud
hal.structure.identifierBordeaux population health [BPH]
dc.contributor.authorBOUTELOUP, Vincent
dc.contributor.authorBERDAI, Driss
dc.contributor.authorSAUX, Marie-Claude
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-18T08:14:32Z
dc.date.available2022-10-18T08:14:32Z
dc.date.issued2022-07
dc.identifier.issn1556-2654 (Electronic) 1556-2646 (Linking)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/170052
dc.description.abstractEnDebate 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.
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.subject.enResearch ethics
dc.subject.enResearch ethics committee
dc.subject.enIRB performance/quality/assessment/evaluation
dc.subject.enBioethics
dc.subject.enEthics education
dc.title.enThe Multidimensional Nature of Research Ethics: Letters Issued by a French Research Ethics Committee Included Similar Proportions of Ethical and Scientific Queries
dc.typeArticle de revueen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/15562646221093218en_US
dc.subject.halSciences du Vivant [q-bio]/Santé publique et épidémiologieen_US
dc.identifier.pubmed35414297en_US
bordeaux.journalJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethicsen_US
bordeaux.page242-253en_US
bordeaux.volume17en_US
bordeaux.hal.laboratoriesBordeaux Population Health Research Center (BPH) - UMR 1219en_US
bordeaux.issue3en_US
bordeaux.institutionUniversité de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.institutionINSERMen_US
bordeaux.teamPHARES_BPHen_US
bordeaux.peerReviewedouien_US
bordeaux.inpressnonen_US
hal.identifierhal-03818753
hal.version1
hal.date.transferred2022-10-18T08:14:34Z
hal.exporttrue
dc.rights.ccPas de Licence CCen_US
bordeaux.COinSctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Empirical%20Research%20on%20Human%20Research%20Ethics&rft.date=2022-07&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=242-253&rft.epage=242-253&rft.eissn=1556-2654%20(Electronic)%201556-2646%20(Linking)&rft.issn=1556-2654%20(Electronic)%201556-2646%20(Linking)&rft.au=HAASER,%20Thibaud&BOUTELOUP,%20Vincent&BERDAI,%20Driss&SAUX,%20Marie-Claude&rft.genre=article


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

FichiersTailleFormatVue

Il n'y a pas de fichiers associés à ce document.

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée