Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Review Article
Authors: Pachana, Nancy A.a; * | Liddle, Jackib | Peel, Nancye M.c | Beattie, Elizabethd | Juang, Christinee | Knight, Bob G.f
Affiliations: [a] School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, QLD, Australia | [b] UQ Centre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, QLD, Australia | [c] Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, The University of Queensland, QLD, Australia | [d] Dementia Collaborative Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology, QLD, Australia | [e] Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA | [f] Davis School of Gerontology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Correspondence: [*] Correspondence to: Nancy A. Pachana, PhD, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Tel.: +617 3365 6832; Fax: +617 3365 4466; E-mail: [email protected].
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
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-141956
Journal: Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 701-707, 2015
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]